[ Page 5177 ]

The House resumed at 6:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we will be debating the estimates of B.C. Transit and then the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply, and we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

T. Nebbeling: Before we recessed, we were talking about the silviculture industry: the traditional silviculture industry and the new form of silviculture industry administration under the jobs and timber accord. One of the points that was raised by me is that there have clearly been changes over the last year or two in funding of projects -- noticed by the industry, not just by me. The minister did not really feel that he had ever heard of a company being in trouble or that companies had shut down or that silviculture workers were kept out of projects because of lack of funding.

When I went, during recess. . . . In my office there was a letter dated July 3, which is today, and I would like to read this letter into the record for the minister's benefit. It will actually reflect how the people that have worked in the industry or are still hoping to work in the industry really do not feel that things are as positive as the minister would like them to be or portrays them to be. It is a letter from a forest management company in Clearwater:

"There was an FRBC press conference in Kamloops about a week ago to deal with the new jobs and timber accord. I had heard that admission was by invitation or pass. I therefore phoned the Kamloops FRBC office requesting one and was told by Norma" -- who must be working in the office -- "that silviculture contractors were excluded from the meeting. So I made no further effort to attend."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, there was a meeting; it was a Friday. It was to announce the provincial investment plan of FRBC. As to the details of this, I think we should wait until we have the FRBC officials here, and they can get an answer.

T. Nebbeling: I happily wait to ask those questions again on this matter, but I can also say that that type of situation has arisen in other communities, as well, including the sitting MLA who was not invited or was told not to come to a reception in Williams Lake because it was by invitation only. That has caused some concern, as well. Obviously the people that were given exposure to what the jobs and timber accord is all about. . . . It seems to be quite selective in who. . . . The meeting was not in Williams Lake; I take that back. It was in Quesnel where the MLA was told that it was by invitation only, and he was not invited. So in these kinds of situations, where public money is used when an initiative by this government is announced -- the jobs and timber accord -- to see that only certain people are allowed at the introduction of the jobs and timber accord in an area really gives me, again, a sense of this whole support that is supposed to be there for the jobs and timber accord, according to the minister's statement and to other government members' statements. I get more and more the idea that this is all fabricated and that it's really been a PR exercise.

When an individual, who happens to represent the silviculture industry as a board member of the silviculture industry foundation and who as an individual is involved with a company that has been involved in silviculture programs for a number of years, is told -- although the announcement will clearly have a serious impact on what he as a businessman is doing -- that it's by invitation or pass only and to therefore not even bother coming, I think it really shows how insecure the government was when it made the announcement on the jobs and timber accord, how little credibility the government was willing to give it and how little faith they had in how the jobs and timber accord would be received. When you select your audience in advance when you make your announcement, then clearly you are not looking for the real reaction of the people, and I think this particular letter illustrates that.

Then the letter goes on, and it is reflective of what we talked about this afternoon, when I clearly stated that I believed that there is indeed less work available and that the industry is giving the message to the government that the industry is making noise to let the minister and other parties know that things are not well. The letter goes on: "In spite of the announcements and your follow-up conversation with the minister" -- whoever this letter was addressed to -- "our crews are still not working. Most of them are now on the EI or social assistance. Some have left the industry and found work elsewhere."

[6:45]

I can go on. Several months ago, there was a consideration by government and Forest Renewal B.C. to transfer an amount of about $4 million from FRBC to the government on some basis. We talked about the money grab, where FRBC money was going to go into general revenue to deal with the deficit budget -- well, a balanced budget that became a deficit budget. The letter goes on:

"And my perception is that there was too much concern about doing this as expressed by the opposition and the public at large, and therefore this proposal did not proceed. And subsequently we have heard of many budget cutbacks within various ministries, including the Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment, together with their corresponding 

[ Page 5178 ]

responsibilities. Apparently, as we have been told, the responsibilities have been shifted to Forest Renewal B.C., something that we are now, through the jobs and timber accord, seeing confirmation of, with no companion funding. We have been told this from a number of sources, but have not been able to confirm it. We do not know what the industry outstanding funding was, cut from the district offices of the Ministry of Forests and transferred to Forest Renewal B.C."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I didn't use the words "companion funding." I don't know who used that phrase. You could tell me.

T. Nebbeling: This was in the phrase, "After being informed that the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment have cutbacks in their budgets and that certain funding has shifted over or has become the responsibility of FRBC, with no companion funding. . . ." I haven't spoken to the individual, otherwise I would have asked that individual, but I'm intrigued by. . . . What could he mean by companion funding? Is it companies chipping in?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I really don't know. I'm sorry.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I will talk to the individual and find out that way what he means by that.

We do know that the industry outstanding funding was cut from the district offices of the Ministry of Forests and transferred to FRBC. Except for the limited amount of industry appraisal work that licensees usually do, we are not aware of any enhanced forestry work being done or coming out this season. If there is, nobody has told me. I should be clear in pointing out that normal amounts of tree-planting were funded and undertaken this year. However, this is not spacing, brushing, pruning, etc. Many contractors have made a living for the last many, many years doing spacing, pruning, etc. -- not this year.

The reason I wanted to read this letter is that we had a fairly serious debate and kind of a heated debate, one-sided, about the state of affairs in the silviculture industry -- that there is hardship happening, that people do not understand why the government collects all this money through FRBC through the super-stumpage system and that it is not coming back. If, indeed, the government or FRBC is still involved in financing projects, maybe the minister can then explain to me why an operator in the Kamloops area would come to the conclusion that many of the projects that were committed have been cut back, and other forms of funding are not coming, either.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We can look into the specifics of the letter. The reason I said, before the dinner hour, that things weren't static is that things are changing, priorities are changing. The regional investment plans, as best we know, reflect not just funding the status quo, not funding every contract that was funded that year, because some years you fund planning projects. You don't expect to plan and plan and plan and plan; at some point you expect to do some work. It doesn't surprise me that sometimes there isn't as much brushing and weeding as there was before. It doesn't surprise me at all; there's no surprise there.

All I can tell you is that FRBC is spending more in every region than it did before in each program area -- not necessarily in every subprogram area, but in every program area -- and that the overall amount being spent in silviculture across the province is more this year than it was last year. I can give you the actual figure. Land- and environment-enhanced forestry for the Thompson-Okanagan region went from $8.4 million last year to $12.5 million this year. It's up.

Maybe that person didn't get a contract. I don't know the particular circumstances. If we take a letter from everybody who isn't working today and who participated in the forest industry. . . . We'll never employ them all, and I don't want to make any pretence that we will. Granted, we want to get as much stability as we can, but the investment plans have to make sense for the return on the dollar. They have to make sense in terms of employing people more on a year-round basis.

T. Nebbeling: We almost seem to be going back to where we were earlier. The argument that was made this afternoon, to our surprise, was that as it stands today, the jobs and timber accord, when it comes to the land-based management strategy, will only start being implemented in the year 1998-99. This plan and its management will exclude existing forest workers from getting the job in order to replace them with the new so-called displaced forest worker, who will, under the IWA banner, have preferential treatment over the existing workforce. That is the problem with this particular sector of the 5,000 new jobs.

Ultimately, I do not believe -- and I think much written evidence backs that up -- that these 5,000 so-called new jobs are new jobs. I think they are jobs that may be new to 5,000 forest workers, but they will displace jobs existing today and jobs that were there yesterday. I have a fundamental problem presenting an initiative under the banner of, "We will create 21,000 new jobs, and 5,000 of them will be in the land-based management strategy," when we know that other people will be kicked out of that industry and will no longer be able to work in that industry.

Will the minister confirm what I asked him this afternoon -- that under the new structure, the IWA will not have the right to insist on seniority when it comes to handing out the jobs under the new job agency? If seniority is going to be a factor -- and I know how seniority is a treasured component of the whole union system -- then every displaced logger will come ahead of the displaced silviculture worker. That is because the silviculture industry is traditionally not union, so a person has to join the union, and the day he joins is when his record starts counting. He will never displace a forest worker -- a logger -- that has been in the forest for 30 years. I think we can agree on that.

Having said that, I would like to go to the practicality of displacing these silviculture jobs with people who have really done different types of work and who are, in general, most likely considerably older than the young people that have been involved, especially in the tree-planting component. Studies have shown that a young individual who goes in the bush and works under quite serious conditions: mosquitoes, hills and difficult, strenuous working conditions. . . . If a young guy goes in there and works on a piecework basis, he can plant 1,000 trees and make $250 a day. He's willing to work under these conditions. He's physically able to work under these conditions, and he's physically able to plant that amount of trees. If we send a 45-year-old ex-logger into 

[ Page 5179 ]

the forest to work under the same conditions. . . . I think it has been proven that the productivity of that individual will never truly match the output of that young tree-planter. How does the minister guarantee that these strenuous displaced jobs will continue to have a level of productivity that is comparable to what we have seen in the forest up to now?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Sorry, you lost me with your last sentence. I really don't know what the question was.

T. Nebbeling: If the minister remembers what I said as an introduction to that question. . . . My question was: how is the minister going to guarantee that the funds spent from FRBC on employing older, displaced forest workers in a very strenuous type of work. . . ? How is the minister going to guarantee that we're going to get the same type of productivity for the money that is spent on this silviculture activity in an area that, from a productivity perspective, has had young and energetic men and women doing that work?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would have to question some of your assumptions. You make assertions that tree-planters are young and loggers are old. The first unionized forest workers who lose their jobs are going to be people lowest in seniority -- right? You argued and said they had a seniority system. Well, if you don't have much seniority, chances are that you're younger. I've said to you that I've seen young loggers who pack saws up and down the mountain, who are quite capable of spacing trees and doing work on restoration. It seems to me that an older person can quite capably drive a crummy for a tree-planting crew.

You've got so many. . . . You just oversimplify this. I think your research is from the newspapers, where some people made statements to try to oversimplify a point. I don't expect somebody who has worked in a sawmill and who might be 60 years old to walk over mountains planting trees. Nobody expects them to do that, so I really don't know what you're talking about.

In this business, there are no guarantees. What there is, is assistance in transition. There is transition training, and there are issues around managing for productivity. I gave you the example, once before, where I am told -- I don't have the studies, but I am told -- that crews that are well organized are as productive as contracts.

I've seen it myself. I've managed crews where they were on hourly pay, and they produced as much for the dollar value as did the contract crew doing the same work. To me, it's a matter of organization. It's a matter of management and a matter of training.

[7:00]

The minister is saying: "Hey, listen, if people are being laid off, it will be the young ones, because compared to the older workers, they don't have the seniority." Well, I don't agree with the minister, because if an area gets shut down, then it doesn't matter if you're young or old. You're on the street.

Look at the millworkers in Prince Rupert. I don't know if you saw the pictures on TV, but in general they were older gentlemen who had worked all their lives in the mill. Do you expect these people to go into the forest and plant trees? I mean, these people are obviously not able to do that.

I spent some time two weeks ago on an information line that was set up by the IWA workers in the Elaho area -- Elaho, Clendenning, the lower Lillooet area. This is tree farm licence 38, and it is one of the areas targeted by the environmental movement, after the protected-areas strategy was introduced and 12 percent of the land mass was set aside, to start the war in the woods all over again.

The Western Canada Wilderness Committee initiated this approach to lay claim to that whole area in wilderness status in order to recognize one of their honoured members who passed away, and I've been involved in that issue ever since they started. I have been very supportive of the forest workers there, and they wanted to put in a barrier there -- not a real blockade but a barrier -- to get everybody to listen to the other side of the story and the other side of what happens in the forest when people get kicked out of earning a living.

I was asked if I would attend, so I was with them for a considerable amount of time. I can tell the minister that if WC2, or the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, had its way, in spite of everybody having agreed on 12 percent being the maximum, that would be parkland set aside on top of the thousands already set aside. If WC2 had its way, it would kick these workers who are there today out of the forest, although that area has already given up a fair amount of the land mass.

Looking at these workers, they are the people I'm talking about. They are not 25 years; they're not 30 or 35. Some are, but very few. Most of them are older. It is not a matter of seniority any longer. A group of people that is kicked out of an area can no longer work in a tree farm licence, which is a land mass that has been set aside to produce fibre. It has been managed, and investment has been made in it by a company. If these land masses disappear, the forest worker is no longer able to make a living so he can support his family.

These are the loggers I'm talking about, who would have to depend. . . . These are IWA workers, by the way. These IWA workers would be the ones who would be looking for this FRBC money. These workers exactly illustrate the type of worker who will ultimately come and knock on the door of the job agency and say: "I need work. I can no longer work in my office." These are men of 35, 40 or 45 years. The minister thinks we have to assert that the people who get laid off are only the young forest workers, and therefore they don't have the seniority that would prohibit a person who has worked in the silviculture industry from getting a job, but that's not a true picture. If an area gets shut down, everybody goes out, and that includes a lot of these older workers.

I am concerned about that part of the whole job agency's desire to create these jobs for the displaced worker. I have no problem with taking care of the displaced worker, but it shouldn't be at the cost of another worker who may ultimately prove to be a more productive worker either through experience or through age.

My question, again, to the minister is: where is the guarantee that the taxpayers' money that will be spent on these land-based management activities will produce the same productivity as has been produced in the past either through funding of the Ministry of Forests for these land-based projects or, to a certain extent, through FRBC?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I expect that the industry standards will be set and utilized. I mean, what's the guarantee now? 

[ Page 5180 ]

Eighty percent of the industry, I'm told by the silviculture business, is now by direct contract. It's not bid to find the lowest bidder or to find the lowest price. There's a standard; it's so much. I think I answered that question. I said that those details haven't been negotiated.

T. Nebbeling: That has not been dealt with. I mean, you cannot mandate productivity. You can guarantee a mandate through a professional, able workforce. If you kick that able, professional workforce out of an industry and replace it. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Nobody's kicking them out.

T. Nebbeling: Of course you are, Mr. Minister. Of course you're kicking them out. The job that used to be a non-union silviculture job was often occupied by younger people, by students or by professional people who had been doing that type of work all their lives, and you would replace that particular job with a person who has for 30 or maybe 40 years worked in the forest as a logger, a faller or a road builder. Of course you're going to have somebody kicked out of a job.

I don't think it is right for the minister to hang on just to this one line: "Everybody can apply for the positions." Having said that, I will go back to the fact that the least we can expect is productivity from the dollars spent, and there's a record available today for the minister to judge where the productivity is. If the minister is not willing to accept that, then where are we going?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is repetitive; I've answered the question.

T. Nebbeling: Let it be on record that the minister has not answered the question before, because we have not yet talked about productivity levels in the silviculture industry as they will be under the new job agency. So the question has not been answered in one way or another. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, would you move on to your next question, please.

T. Nebbeling: Sure. Well, let's go into the next part, although it still has to do with the viability of finding productivity levels that are indeed compatible with what we have.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I'm going to give you some examples that prove -- not through hypothetical situations, but through experience -- that these levels have not been reached. Recently we had professional tree-planters doing some work along the new highway. It had to be displaced workers, so they got a couple of people doing the tree-planting along the Vancouver Island Highway. The contractor came out at the end of the day and said: "Well, it could work, but it was about 20 percent of what I would have had if I had been able to use my own crew. But I had to train these new people." He did, and we got a return of about 20 percent of the dollar.

So that's an example that doesn't work. But the minister is also aware -- and this contradicts what he said before a little bit -- that the basic silviculture activities that are undertaken by governments. . . .

An Hon. Member: You're just listening to yourself.

T. Nebbeling: Oh, I am. Don't worry. I know what I'm talking about; I've been there. I'm not just sitting here trying to moan all the time.

Anyhow, the minister knows that the IWA has started to negotiate with the major companies from time to time, that any silviculture jobs that are available. . . . The IWA is now negotiating the contracts that the majors use for the basic silviculture activity -- the displaced forest workers first. And I believe that the majors can give the minister a fair amount of background information -- how effective that has proven to be. Is the minister aware that some of the majors are today employing displaced forest workers to do the basic silviculture work?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I'm aware. That's correct, and it doesn't surprise me. Industry can hire who they want to do their basic silviculture.

T. Nebbeling: In his defence of seeing some of the traditional jobs shifted over to a job agency that will be managed by the IWA, the minister's argument has been, time after time, that it would not affect the basic silviculture activities that the companies have to undertake as a consequence of their harvesting in any way, shape or form. I'm just giving the minister an example that the companies now, through the collective bargaining process with the IWA. . . .

The minister puts his hands up in the air; that's fine. What I'm saying is that the IWA is now, as part of the collective bargaining process, demanding that basic silviculture work done after the harvesting is done by displaced forest workers.

So an area that the minister said, time after time, would be available for the traditional silviculture worker, which is the basic silviculture program -- $150 million, the minister said earlier on -- is not necessarily available any longer, either, because of the IWA's collective bargaining approach towards these jobs as well. So the opportunities for the 18,000 people who today were supposed to be working -- because the system hasn't kicked in yet -- are not going to have the opportunities available next year or in the following years. That's the problem that I have with this kind of an attempt.

So the minister's excuse that the money for basic silviculture is still available is not totally true. Now that the minister has been made aware of this, maybe he can see why the industry is in uproar. Maybe the minister can see why there is a problem.

Will the minister, knowing now that the basic silviculture industry money is not necessarily available, explain to me how he will deal with that army of people who had jobs and will no longer have jobs because of the jobs and timber accord's changes in how the funding will go to the silviculture workers?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've said it, and I'll say it again. The jobs and timber accord does not affect the basic silviculture industry. There's nothing in the accord that changes the way major industry deals with it. If they choose for some other reason to deal with it, to negotiate something, that's up to them. The jobs and timber accord -- let me say it for the fourth time -- does not affect the basic silviculture industry. I cannot make it any clearer, and I suggest that you read it again in Hansard.

An Hon. Member: There you go. Has the penny dropped yet?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yeah, has the penny dropped? Has it? Can I ask a question?

[ Page 5181 ]

T. Nebbeling: I must say that it's laughable. I try to get a simple question answered, which is based on statements made by the minister before, and he gets all worked up about it. He has not. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, that's not necessarily helpful. Move on to another line of questioning.

T. Nebbeling: Is the minister aware of how many silviculture jobs are now controlled by the IWA through collective bargaining -- silviculture jobs that up to recently were available to non-union workers?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, I'm actually not aware. It's for the IWA and industry to decide. I don't ask them to report on that, and it's not part of the estimates of this ministry, quite frankly.

T. Nebbeling: I agree with the minister that this should not be part of the estimates. However, it is the minister, in his statements -- and we can check Hansard -- that has constantly used the basic silviculture work in this province as the type of work that will continue to be available for the people that I'm concerned about. It's going to be continually available for the people. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member. . . .

T. Nebbeling: Well, it's to the minister.

The Chair: Thank you. Move on.

T. Nebbeling: Okay. Let's go on to the next part of this whole silly exercise, because the minister obviously has no answer. It is a shame. It is sad, because we are talking about the lives of thousands of forest workers. That they happen not to have a union ticket should not, in the end, go against them. Maybe the Chair could explain to the minister. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, continue with questioning and. . . .

T. Nebbeling: I'm continuing with questioning, but I would also like to make sure that I have 15 minutes to come to my question. I'm not going to be pressured by anybody.

An Hon. Member: Oh, for God's sake.

T. Nebbeling: Sorry, read the rules. Unless the Chair tells me that it is not the case, I will continue to phrase my question around circumstances that are actually happening out there. . .

M. Sihota: Does it take you 15 minutes to think of a question? Is that how fast you think? Does it take you 15 minutes to ask a question?

T. Nebbeling: . . .not what the minister wants to walk away from or what the member from Metchosin is trying to hide from. It must be difficult for the member; it must be really difficult for the member who has been, at one time, the Minister of Environment. . . .

[7:15]

T. Nebbeling: Well, then, Madam. . . .

The Chair: I suggest. . . . We're dealing with vote 37.

T. Nebbeling: I will happily speak to that, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

T. Nebbeling: I still come back to the community that depends on the silviculture activities in this province -- that jar of $300 million that is now being distributed through the government, FRBC, and will be managed through an agency. The minister told me that although the jobs and timber accord has been announced, there is still no framework for how that money will be channelled toward the agency and under what conditions this money will be used to indeed create these 5,000 jobs. The minister doesn't know what wage scales are going to be paid. The minister doesn't know about working hours. The minister doesn't know about transportation. Does that count? There are a lot of questions outstanding there.

So right now the minister is saying that the money is still distributed under the old rule, and on that basis the $300 million have been channelled into the province. Another minister is saying $625 million, but let's stick to the $300 million that is part of the jobs and timber accord's approach to spending $300 million for five years, which adds up to $1.5 billion.

What I'd like to talk about with the minister, now that he has announced these amounts. . . . On the trip that the minister took with the Premier to bring the goodwill tidings, I believe they visited every regional area, and in every regional area they had somebody make announcements about funding for land-based projects. What I would like to know from the minister is: how much of the FRBC money did he commit to every region for the land-based projects?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Go back and read your press releases.

T. Nebbeling: "Read the press releases," is a very silly answer. I don't get press releases in my office. I don't want press releases; I want facts. I want to hear from the minister what amounts he left in the various districts and regions. If the minister can't answer that, that's fine. If he wants to show that he has not a clue about what happens in his ministry, by not even knowing what the numbers are, that's fine. But don't say: "Read the press releases." That's a very poor answer, and I'm not going to settle for that.

The minister went around the province trying to buy goodwill for the jobs and timber accord. At the time that he brought the jobs and timber accord to the communities, he also had the message of FRBC funding in these regions, and I would like to know, by region, how much.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps you don't remember the conversation we had -- that we would bring the FRBC people here. We're talking about the ministry estimates. We can discuss the FRBC estimates. The business plan has been tabled. It's all in the business plan. I released it the other day. Check your in-basket; you'll have it. I can read them out, and I may be convinced to read them out. I'll dig them up. But we agreed that I'd have FRBC officials here. So what I'm saying is that you tend to want to waste the time of the House. And what's the point? Just what is the point?

An Hon. Member: I think the problem is that he doesn't know.

[ Page 5182 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yeah, I don't think you know what you're getting at here. If you want to discuss FRBC, we'll do it. But tell us what you're getting at, and I'll try to answer your question.

An Hon. Member: What's your point?

T. Nebbeling: I would appreciate it if the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin could stay in order. This is estimates. This is between the minister and myself right now, and he is not helping. The minister doesn't bother me, but it does interrupt my being able to hear what the minister is saying.

My point to the minister is very clear. I want to know how much FRBC is spending and where it's spending it. This is estimates. This is the books, and when we get to FRBC, no doubt. . . .

An Hon. Member: So what's your point? Did you forget already?

T. Nebbeling: Point of order, Madam Chair. If the member could be told that either he works within the guidelines or, if he wants to be a soundbox, he goes and stands on top of this building and attracts the tourists. . . . That might be a nice, interesting sideshow.

An Hon. Member: If you know the guidelines so well, you'd better be questioned about them.

T. Nebbeling: I would have expected an answer to my request, Madam Chair.

Anyway, what I'm looking for here is not through press releases and not through a lippy attitude by the minister. What I'm looking for is factual numbers on the regional expenditures expected to be spent, based on the announcement that the minister's office made. And I want to know it now, not by me checking a press release and not by going through a business plan. I would like to know what these numbers are right now, and I don't think it is a question that is outside the realm of the estimates.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If we're talking about land and environment programs, for the province it's $433.5 million. In the Kootenays, it's $42.4 million; Omenica-Peace, $98.1 million; Pacific, $137.1 million; Skeena, $52.2 million; and Thompson-Okanagan, $56.9 million.

T. Nebbeling: I would like to ask the minister to repeat these numbers a little slower so I can make a note, because rattling them off doesn't give me the opportunity to write the numbers down.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, I'll send them to you.

Interjections.

T. Nebbeling: It is amazing, hon. Chair, how you allow all the other members in the House to fight and make noise for the minister -- I suppose to protect him because he's not able to have a debate with me under the estimate procedures. That makes sense. And the more heckling. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, it's my observation that the dialogue is working perfectly well.

T. Nebbeling: Okay, if it is fine with you, then it is fine with me.

The Chair: So just carry on with your questioning.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you, hon. Chair, for at least observing the level of dialogue that goes on in this House.

I had hoped not to have to go into this, but it is really frightening to see this government's action illustrated by the way they deal with the forest industry, how they deal with the people who work in the forest -- and for ideology reasons, I believe -- and how certain workers in the forest are actually being excluded from having the benefit of this so-called jobs and timber accord.

We should remember that the jobs and timber accord creates job opportunities -- or is supposed to create job opportunities -- with taxpayers' dollars and that ultimately the taxpayers' base belongs to everybody. So when I see throughout the province people losing businesses, people losing opportunities to make a living and to support their families, people no longer being able to take care of the education of their kids because of the mismanagement of this government and the lack of taking responsibility for that mismanagement. . . .

Since this government has been in place, it has done one thing. It has created nothing but policies and regulations. It has done one thing and one thing only, and that is kick people out of the forest, for all kinds of reasons. When all or most of these initiatives really had merit by the objectives that they were supposed to achieve, it is really scary to see that reality, because the mismanagement has led to the need to. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've heard this several times before. I don't think we need to hear it again. It's tedious and boring and repetitious.

The Chair: I'm sure the member will take that. . . .

T. Nebbeling: Oh, no. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, take your seat, please. The minister has made some suggestions about comments and the general direction of your questioning. I would concur with some of those, so I would encourage you to move on to a new line of questioning.

T. Nebbeling: Let's go back to what we talked about before, and that is the need. . . .

Interjections.

T. Nebbeling: Point of order. Who runs the meeting? Who is the Chair? Who tells me what I can do and what I cannot do? Please, hon. Chair, I would like to have advice.

The Chair: Hon. member, you have the floor.

T. Nebbeling: Then I would ask the Chair to keep a bit of order amongst the. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, that is not appropriate.

T. Nebbeling: Hon. Chair, I would like to talk about the business environment in this province, especially when it comes to the forest industry. I read a letter earlier on that was written by an individual in Kamloops, who truly feels that the action of this government not only is undermining job oppor-

[ Page 5183 ]

tunity in this province but, which is worse, is also undermining very seriously the drive by the investment industry to come back into this province to provide the needed funding. That will be sorely needed to get this industry back into order and into a situation so that we do not need these kinds of band-aid approaches that we see here today to create jobs, but let jobs be created by the investment of the people who believe there is a future in this province when it comes to this industry. I've asked the minister in the past, but he's really not gone into detail or responded to that.

The global market today clearly shows that the cost of our product in this province, on the timber that comes out of the forest -- because of its regulations, its stumpage, all the forms of taxation -- is so high that we cannot any longer expect the end product of whatever comes out of the mill to be competitive in the global market. I've asked the minister before if he could spend some time on that and then see if there is indeed some consideration for change.

So the jobs and timber accord is one thing, but the other fundamentals are clearly that we have to have a business environment, an investment environment that can take care of the other needs, to bring the government to realize that for us to create a healthy industry, these changes have to happen. I have used some examples earlier on where I believe we have gone wrong. We used the Terrace situation; we used the. . . .

Maybe the minister can talk for awhile about how he believes we can re-entice the investor to come to this province and contribute, so that the money we spend under the jobs and timber accord will not only create the jobs but create jobs in a sustainable industry, so that at the end of the five years we can't look back and say: "Sorry, it was wasted money. It didn't work, and it is a shame. But we tried."

I'm looking for answers to make sure that this investment is almost guaranteed to pay off. The jobs and timber accord, because of the lack of detail -- the lack of any true direction on how the implementation of the plan will happen, as the minister explained -- cannot give that satisfaction. What other elements are there today under consideration by the minister to assure us that indeed $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money will not be spent in vain?

[7:30]

I'd like to just remind the member, with respect to investments in British Columbia, that I said it was up. I used the figure of $1.3 billion last year -- actually $1.4 billion, just about, $1.392 billion in investment. What was it in '92? It was $907 million. In '93 it was $1.122 billion, then down a bit in 1994 to $1.064 billion, but up in '95 to $1.270 billion, and in 1996, $1.392 billion. Investment rising in the forest industry! Great climate!

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. member. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, take it easy.

T. Nebbeling: I'm fine. It is really telling that the years the minister tabulates -- and he gives a chronology of numbers of dollars spent in this province -- are exactly the years that started to be the years when people said: "Hey, wait a second. Something is happening in the forest that isn't right." In 1991, when this government came into power. . . . If we look at the numbers from the late eighties, I think they're considerably higher. But then suddenly this government took over, and where the intent. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. members, we're on vote 37.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In this case you shouldn't have used the plural form, because I was just waiting for the member to say his say, which he enjoys. I'm actually quite pleased with his contribution here, because yesterday the whole evening was quite dull when it came to debating vote 37. So to have some input from that side of the House, although it is very. . . .

An Hon. Member: What are you doing? Are you videotaping this thing?

T. Nebbeling: No, no. I have that done in the House.

Anyhow, it is noticeable that indeed the numbers that are quoted by the minister as proof of an escalation in investment in this province are the numbers when this government was in power. If you compare these numbers with previous numbers, I think they're considerably lower, especially if we consider inflation and everything.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: But there's no doubt about. . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, if the minister would at least have this kind of dialogue with me, maybe we would come to a conclusion. I have to guess. I don't have the information that the minister should have there because he's got an army of workers with him. I'm here alone.

I just look at what the industry is reporting. I'm just looking at the return that the industry is getting on the investment. If you look at the return on the investment, if you knew anything about money and if you'd ever worked for your wage, then you would realize that a return on your money of that percentage is just not working.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Point of order.

The Chair: Hon. members, order, please.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Like I say, if the minister would just have that kind of dialogue so he can talk about what he believes are the real numbers and what the return on the investment is for the investor, then he can see that it is not working. There have been enough reports in economic magazines about the state of the province's financial well-being. That has been described in 

[ Page 5184 ]

general, when it comes to the forest industry, as: "They had a goose, but they killed the goose that laid the golden eggs." Unless we stop killing that goose, we are not going to see any change.

What I'm looking for is how the minister, in the next five years, based on his projections of new jobs, based on his belief that this particular job accord will once again bring the forest industry into a state of well-being, sustainability for the forests, sustainability for the environment, sustainability for communities. . . . If the minister truly believes that, as he constantly reminds us he does, I would like to see what other elements are indeed incorporated in his thought process to achieve these goals. The jobs and timber accord alone will not do it, but the minister may have some thoughts about that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think I'm repeating myself, too. But industry came to us and suggested that if we were going to talk about creating more jobs, we had to talk about investment climate, profitability, economics of the industry. What did I say? I said: "Yes, put it on the table."

Industry came back to us with a document and a presentation that they took around the province, called "Industry on the Brink." They looked at their profitability, and they said: "Let's do something about it. But don't relax the forest standards, the code. Don't relax the code." They said: "Don't relax the environmental standards." Right?

We said: "Fine." We engaged in a process. You want some efficiencies, and we want to make some efficiencies in how we administer. So we said: "We'll come up with an accord, an agreement that has some incentives in there for industry." It's full of incentives. They get access to more wood. They get access to FRBC dollars to pay for inventory. There's a number of carrots in there. So that's going to improve the climate.

All I can suggest to the member is that if he wants a rough rule of thumb, we've asked them to create 2,000 jobs. It costs about $1 million a job in capital investment, in rough figures. Every time I look at a major investment for a long-term job, it's about a million bucks. That's about $2 billion over four years. That's doable. That's about a third of the investment that we've had, as historic record. I think that will do it.

So those are the kinds of things that go through our thought process, responding to industry's concerns. You've heard them say: "Yes, government did respond." The jobs and timber accord gives form to that response.

T. Nebbeling: At least he's talking real numbers now. When the minister says that the industry has committed $200 million over the next five years -- or four years or three years -- $200 million within the lifespan of this contract. . . . If the minister is saying that, then based on the fact that that will create 2,000 jobs -- $1 million a job -- isn't it, then, appalling to see $1.5 billion spent on 5,000 silviculture workers? At the price of $1.5 billion, it just doesn't make any sense that the minister thinks it's a wise approach. When $200 million can create 2,000 jobs, why would you spend $1.5 billion to create 5,000 jobs? This is a mystery to me that doesn't make much sense.

I would suggest: why don't we give the industry another $300 million, and they will create the basis of these jobs, then. There's your 5,000 jobs, and you still have a lot of money in your pocket. So what the minister clearly doesn't understand, and what the minister is not really committed to, is that the industry is on side -- not fully, but the demand on the industry is next to nothing.

Just think of it: 2,000 jobs. At the same time the industry gets a market for its surplus timber, which is going to go to the manufacturing sector by increasing the percentage of timber under the old credit system, that now becomes 16 or 18 percent. This is lumber that they cannot sell in the States anymore. So that's a bit of a break for them. There is nothing in the timber contract that says that the lumber has to be sold at a price that is not necessarily market. The companies can have a market price for their timber, so they're not suffering. They continue to make the money. Fine with me. But don't say that the majors are going to be suffering because of this timber accord. It's nothing compared to the suffering that you will see in the communities where the silviculture industry has been the way of making a living.

That particular job gain of 2,000 people for the price of $200 million, compared to what others are having to deliver, is to me very little, and it doesn't impress me at all. What I'm looking at is the opportunity for companies once again to get timber out of the forest that will, indeed, lead to solving the big problem. . . .

Interjections.

T. Nebbeling: Point of order, Madam Chair. I would really like to work under the rules of this House and not be constantly heckled by the member from Metchosin, who feels that he is directing this estimates debate, rather than the Chair. I would prefer. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, that's not an appropriate kind of reference. If you have an objection. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, please come to order.

T. Nebbeling: When I travelled the province, since being elected as the critic for the B.C. Liberal Party, I visited maybe 30, 40 or 50 cities. In every community, be it on the north Island, be it in the interior or be it in the northwest, small communities. . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: He hasn't got the guts to stand up. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, that's not an appropriate comment. Take your seat, please.

There's too much by-play going back and forth from both sides. The hon. member speaking is being heckled or being interrupted by his own side, and the other side's having a good go, too. So I suggest everybody cool down for a little bit. Hon. member, I encourage you to come to the point. Ask your questions in a concise manner, if you wouldn't mind.

T. Nebbeling: Madam Chair, I'm not going to argue with you. I will ask my questions in a manner that I feel comfortable with. I believe I have the right to illustrate my questions, and I've done it since we started the estimates, and I intend to continue fully in that manner -- because that is my style -- until we are finished with estimates. And I'm not overruling you. I will observe the light; I will make sure that when I talk I will talk on the matter that I am leading towards for the question. But really, from time to time, I will spend some time explaining why I feel a certain way. I will take some time to 

[ Page 5185 ]

explain why, indeed, I do not believe that the policy and the direction in which this government has driven the forest industry are going to ultimately create the prosperity that this industry should. . .because it has tremendous opportunities.

As I started to say, I would like to talk about stumpage for a little while. I would like to talk about the cost that is imposed on the forest companies before they even come out of the forest with the timber. I'd like to talk about the experience that I have seen firsthand that has created the hardship in communities throughout British Columbia where the forest industry, indeed, is the only way to create a livelihood -- not just for the logger but for his whole family.

It's the only way that a logger can, if everything is right, create enough income to make sure that he can pay his mortgage, that he can pay for the equipment he needs to go and do his work. And it is the only way for the logger to make sure that his kids, indeed, will have the security of education. Hopefully, with the assistance of Forest Renewal B.C. in these communities, new mechanisms are created to make other opportunities for the next generation rather than just going into the forest. That is what the minister is often talking about: that the AAC reduction is really an important part in recreating a healthy forest. I agree with that, but you cannot do that without spending money in communities that are dependent on that long traditional source of income: the forest industry.

So when I go into the various communities and I meet people who have often invited me to come to their community to see firsthand what's happening, and when I come to these communities and I see what these community members used to have. . . . They used to have a future, they used to have work, they would have pride in what they were doing, they were totally comfortable living in the community.

Then you come to these communities now, after the many things that have changed how we work in the forest. . . . That well-being is just not there any longer. The jobs are no longer there, and the one thing that every time. . . . It doesn't matter if I am on the coast in Port Alice or if I'm in Port Hardy, Port McNeill, Alberni or any of the other places; it doesn't matter if I'm in Smithers or Stewart.

[7:45]

Right now, I know that often the company has been asked by a number of communities to see stumpage changes happening. I think of the Terrace situation, where the pulp log often isn't a high-grade log for scaling purposes. But when they open it, 60 percent is rotten, so it goes into pulp. Nevertheless, they still have to pay stumpage as if this were a high-grade log.

So is the minister at this time working on a re-evaluation of the stumpage system? And if he is, what are the elements that the minister believes he can use to change some of these situations? The minister is already shaking his head, so obviously he is not working on it. Maybe he can prove me wrong.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would argue that only a fool would ask for an overhaul of the stumpage system, when we just got an agreement with the U.S. Only a fool would ask for it. And I'm not a fool, so I wouldn't re-evaluate the system.

T. Nebbeling: Well, obviously the minister was trying to make me out to be a fool, and I don't take lightly to that. I would like him to take that back.

The Chair: Hon. minister, I think in the early part of your comments, in your response, perhaps the word was inappropriately used.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wasn't referring to any member. I was just saying that it would be foolish and that only a fool would ask for an overhaul of the stumpage system when we've just settled our American trading partners down. We've got a stumpage system that more fairly reflects the value of the timber, so they stopped the countervail.

So the question is: what are we doing about the stumpage system? We're not revising the stumpage system, is what I said, because we have an agreement with the Americans, and only a fool would ask for us to do that. So what we are doing. . . .

T. Nebbeling: Point of order. I was the one who did ask the question that is up for consideration, so the minister is clearly hinting at me, and I would like to see a withdrawal of that.

The Chair: Hon. minister, I would ask you: in what way you were using that term? Were you, in fact, implying anything about the hon. member?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, I wasn't suggesting that any member in this House was a fool.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. Now proceed.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What is important to recognize is that when we talk about the stumpage system that's in place, to change it we would have to go through some consultations -- very distasteful, nevertheless -- with the Americans, who have in the past put countervailing duties on our wood products.

Having had an agreement that stabilizes the industry, what can we do now? The system is supposed to be market-sensitive. It is market-sensitive to sawlogs, mostly; it doesn't reflect the value of pulp logs. We are making sure that we make adjustments that deal with the market value of the full range of logs in the forest. We have appraisal committees in the interior and the north. We worked through that. We have had discussions with industry, and we are making -- and have made -- some technical fixes with respect to points of appraisal and things that really reflect the way the marketing of timber works in British Columbia.

T. Nebbeling: It's surprising that the minister gives this answer. It must be a lack of knowledge. If he had only listened to his Premier, he would have known that the Premier recently announced some of the things that are happening in the stumpage area, be it waiving of collecting stumpage from companies or other ways of bringing some relief to certain sectors of the industry. No longer is it the volume, the stumpage, the dollars that dictate what is acceptable to the Americans. The whole system is now based on a volume system.

[ Page 5186 ]

The minister not knowing this is kind of surprising. I wouldn't call it foolish but surprising, because I would expect that if the Premier is defending some of the things happening in the province right now with stumpage with certain companies, it is amazing that the minister is not aware of it. The Premier has used clearly the argument that from now on the countervail is based on volume, so the money is not going to be there.

What I would like to know is. . . . If the minister is now aware that the Premier is already saying that the stumpage could be variable in different areas, would the minister still exclude stumpage from part of the stumpage re-evaluation, as being part of the total solution in the long term of how the forest industry indeed comes to the healthy state it should be in if we had not had these horrible initiatives that in part were introduced by the prior Minister of Environment, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin? Having said that. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What the Premier has said is consistent with what I've said.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to call the minister a fool as he would like to call me, but if the minister looks into the records, he will see that. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, the minister made it very clear that he was making no personal reference in his comments.

T. Nebbeling: I accept that. I would like to ask the minister, then, to check with his officials and in the records and see that it is no longer the value that is the consideration and see if it is a subsidy or not. The whole countervail is now driven by volume. That is determining it. The minister knows that in order to sell the jobs and timber accord, he -- or his deputies -- had to fly to the States to talk to the Americans in Washington, to see if they would please allow certain things to happen in the jobs and timber accord without triggering the countervail. Some consideration for stumpage is obviously part of that.

The minister not knowing shows once again that he really hasn't got a good overview of what happens in his ministry. I hope he will make up his mind that it is going to be needed, so that when we start talking about stumpage in the long run -- and we will have a considerable amount of dialogue on stumpage when we get to it -- he has all his facts together. Then we can have a debate based on facts and try to find some ways to take away the financial pressure on so many thousands of people in forest-dependent communities, caused by losing their jobs.

If we can do that, then this whole estimates process obviously is the way I would like to see it happen. That's not happening now. I'm going to sit back for ten minutes, and I'm going to watch the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin while my colleague from the Cariboo continues.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Thank you for an opportunity to respond. We didn't go to the United States and ask them for permission. We wouldn't do that. I could suggest a name for the kind of person who would do that. Under the softwood lumber agreement we are required. . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Listen very carefully -- I don't want to repeat it.

. . .to advise them of policy and regulatory changes. So, honouring our international agreement, we went down and explained to them the changes that were proposed to the code and the jobs and timber accord. It's simple.

J. Wilson: If I can butt my way in here. . . .

Interjections.

J. Wilson: Do you think I have the attention of the minister, or is he still engaged in a debate here?

I would like to go back to a question I asked the minister yesterday, I believe. He made a reference to the possibility of a log market being created within the parameters of the 2,000 jobs that the major licensees were going to create. Could the minister expound on this and tell me exactly what he means by the creation of the log market?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member kindly showed me the Hansard, because I didn't recall making that exact statement. I was asked what kinds of things might be done to create the 2,000 jobs by the tenure holders. Let me just go into the accord for a minute. What we intend to do -- or what industry has agreed to do -- is invest capital to improve technology, operations, efficiency and product value. They will seek out and develop higher-value products and markets and other initiatives or activities as appropriate. One of the. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, the debate is between other members than those whose voices I'm hearing. I would urge the other members to pay attention to the debate that's going on.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wasn't saying there was going to be this kind of log market developed. I said industry had a number of ideas that were proposed through discussions. Log markets already exist. What truck loggers have told us, for example, is that you can create more value and employment if you buck in the bush, if you do more sorts -- do 60 instead of 20 sorts -- and try to get the higher-value logs to a different market. That creates employment. If industry wants to do that and count those jobs, that's acceptable.

For example, there is an area of focus where they might create these jobs, and I'll just go into that a little bit. I think this is what I was referring to -- creating more jobs in the woods. In the logging sector they can add value to the log. They can change the way we log and transport, to minimize timber damage. They can employ more innovative logging techniques and expand the envelope of potential harvesting areas. Under log distribution, they might get the right log to the right mill through sorts, or they might create a pilot hardwood log market, for example. There isn't an exclusive hardwood log market. Those are some of the kinds of things.

There's no blueprint; they are ideas. Industry has undertaken to create the 2,000 jobs and has provided a number of ideas to do that. They'll be working on them.

J. Wilson: I realize we do have a log market at present on the coast. There has been a considerable number of people who have advocated for some time that there should be a log 

[ Page 5187 ]

market established in the interior. I believe what I hear the minister saying is that a log market created would be at the discretion of the licensees and that it would relate more to the trading of logs before they're processed rather than to what most people would refer to as a log market, which is something that would be set up to establish a market value for logs. Is this correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It depends a bit on the licensee. In some cases there are licences that exceed their committed volumes to the mills, so some licensees have logs surplus to their needs. In the interior that's usually not the case; they have less under licence than their facility can process. In that case there might be some kind of a market to allow logs to get to their higher value, to the right place. On the coast, it might be something like this hardwood log market. Right now you might have a hardwood log market in the interior, for example -- that could be created. You have a bit of a one working out of Ainsworth and 100 Mile House. They're operating a sort. They ship peelers out and turn the lower-value hardwoods into OSB.

[8:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We wouldn't encourage it particularly, but if you look at an industry. . . . There is an argument made by the industry that we should allow logs to flow to the areas where they can be processed, bid up, and more value is created. There is an argument to allow a freer flow through the province, but we have the counterpressure of keeping logs in communities. All the jobs and timber accord really says is that we understand the economics of the industry and that we will respond to the industry's needs as best we can in their attempts to create jobs. In theory it could, but it depends on the nature of the wood. Right now, if the wood is committed to being processed in an area, they'll have to process an equivalent volume. They may purchase. . . . Logs flow in and out of regions, and they're roughly in balance. In the interior and on the coast they're nowhere in balance.

J. Wilson: I appreciate that. It's pretty easy to move logs around; it's a little bit more difficult to move jobs around. I would like to move through this, but when I leave this subject, I'd like to have the feeling that the government has not given the industry a blank cheque and is not going to approve any scheme that they come up with to create value in a product -- such as shipment from one region to another, which could eliminate jobs in one region where they now exist. I hope that the ministry will put some control in there and say: "Look, this is as far as you can go in this direction." Is this going to happen?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is no blank cheque to industry. I don't know what to say other than that they've suggested log marketing as one of the things they would like to do. After all, we're trying to create more jobs on the whole, but we have not, through this jobs and timber accord, dictated any number of jobs in any given region. If industry themselves have logs surplus to their needs that they're now shipping out of a region, they will be free to do that. A local community, on the other hand, may encourage the industry, or government may encourage the industry, or any party may encourage the industry -- labour -- to process more of it in a region, and they may come up with a scheme that allows that processing. I expect there will be continued change in the industry, but we are not, by this agreement, changing the appurtenance clauses in any of the licences.

J. Wilson: This being the case, is there now or will there be the opportunity for someone to come along and establish a log market at their own expense -- set up a business of dealing in logs so that they can put them on the market at fair market value and sell them, rather than have industry run this program?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The accord is silent on that.

J. Wilson: By silent, I would assume that that means it's the way we. . . . The minister has referred to it -- it will be at the discretion of industry. I assume that is the answer. That means the answer to my question would be no.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's just not covered by the accord. The Forest Act would apply. Somebody who has timber that there are no conditions on is free to set up a log market. But I just remind you that most timber is tied to a plant somewhere.

J. Wilson: The minister is right: most timber is tied to a facility somewhere -- at least 80 percent of it is. But there is that other 15 to 20 percent that is not. The way the accord is going, that wood will become eaten up by the accord. It won't remain where it is. It has the potential of being taken into the accord and utilized. So I think there is some relevance to my question. The 15 percent of the small business program could all end up under the jurisdiction of the timber accord. I would like to know that within that 15 percent or 10 percent that is remaining, there is the possibility of establishing a log market.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The 15 percent is still run on the bid proposal program in the small business program. The bid proposal is generally targeted to community jobs through remanufacturing of some kind. Under the accord, the industry will retain its status quo practices regarding the disposition of the logs. It does accept that industry will keep on with its current practices of supplying logs to the reman sector.

What the accord deals with is directing sawn fibre. This accord is silent on the operation of the small business program. We are, however, talking to the small business sector with a view to trying to get more to the reman sector in general. But we'll have a balance of allowing it to flow to specialty remanufacture which goes into a region. We'll try to steer timber sales in a region to those parts of the region that have reman facilities or to communities that encourage manufacturing. There are a number of ways of doing it. How we administer the small business program is very complex, but we look at community needs.

J. Wilson: It is complex, but under the accord the undercut portion of the small business program will be redirected, and I believe the other day that the minister indicated it could go anywhere. The undercut portion could go to a major; it could go to a value-added; it could go anywhere. Is this correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I did say that the small business undercut would have to consider the Crown development objectives. They would be things like local employment. We 

[ Page 5188 ]

might put that in there; we might put remanufacturing in; we might put bonus bids in. There are any number of criteria that we can put on forest licences that we might offer under the small business program. So there are a number of licence methods that we can use, but the accord itself is silent on that. It doesn't guide us. We are talking to the small business table about their needs, and in doing so we will listen to what they have to say. They have asked for more of it to go to the reman sector. We're generally in agreement with some more of the wood going to the reman sector.

J. Wilson: Could the minister give me the figure for the volume of undercut in the past year in the small business program?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Last year the undercut was negligible; it was close to zero. The year before that it was a little less than half a million, and it averaged about that over the five previous years. The total accumulated undercut is approximately two million, and that's on a total base of 9.3 million allocated to the small business program.

J. Wilson: Now, if the undercut was negligible last year, does that mean that all of the small business program that was put up was bid on and bought? Or does that include a portion that was, perhaps, put into five-year non-renewable licences? And if so, what percentage would have been put into non-renewable licences?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd first like to correct the record. Last year, there was less than half a million of undercut. In the previous four years, it averaged about a million undercut. So we've been reducing the undercut. And in '96-97, none of that was put into small-term non-replaceable licences.

J. Wilson: At present in the small business forest enterprise program here, do we include things like -- well, any aspects of forests, such as woodlots? Are they part of this?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Once a woodlot has been created, it's removed from the land base because it's an area-based licence. It's its own management unit, so it's not part of the small business program.

[8:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're trying to avoid double-counting. So if it actually was sold once and sold again, we don't want to count it twice. Normally, what would happen is that the amount would go back into the small business apportionment, and then would be resold at the earliest convenience. But what has been happening is that most people have asked for extensions, and we've been trying to be fairly liberal in granting extensions.

J. Wilson: Could the minister provide me with a figure on the number of sales that have been returned? What I mean by that is where the deposits have been left with the ministry and the operator has walked away from the commitment.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: At this point we don't have that information on hand. We would have to go to each of the 43 districts and ask them how many sales they have had. It would take some time to do it; we can do it. But I would expect that in the annual reporting, we would pick up that information. We're not sure; we'd have to check. We can get the information, but we don't have it now.

J. Wilson: I'll try to make it a little easier. I think for my case, I would be happy to get the Cariboo forest region, if possible, rather than the province. If the minister would be able to supply those figures to me, it would be appreciated.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We think we can go to the five districts and get that information. It might take a couple of days, but we would get that to you as soon as possible.

J. Wilson: In some cases, I have heard of deposits being returned. Do you have a figure on how many have been returned, and in which districts they would have been returned without the completion of the sale?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would take the same procedure to get it. We'd have to go out to the districts and ask them to provide that information to us.

J. Wilson: If the minister would commit to supplying me with that, I would be quite happy. And there was one other number that I would like to get from the minister, if possible, and that is the number of extensions that have been granted on these sales because the contractor failed to meet the completion date.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We will add that to the list. That particular data may be a little more time-consuming to collect, but we will nevertheless endeavour to get that to you as soon as we can.

J. Wilson: Is the minister provided with an up-to-date market report on the value of sawlogs in the interior in each district? Does he have, say, a monthly summation of the average price paid in each district?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, we only know what the bonus bids are. We obviously know what the upset is -- we set that -- and we know what the bonus bids are, but we don't know what private parties agree on for log prices. We don't know that. We have an idea of the value of logs in the log market at the coast, because there is documentation on that.

J. Wilson: Then does the minister have the average bonus bid and the upset price, say, on a small business sale in the Quesnel forest district? Do you have that at hand?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have that information right here. We can get it, though.

J. Wilson: There's another group of people out here that. . . . They're not woodlot owners, but they do a little bit of harvesting each year. They have a forest licence. These people are the resort owners that operate the ski hills. Normally they 

[ Page 5189 ]

will do a little bit of work each year, clear some more ground and put in new trails. Can the minister tell me if the stumpage rate assessed to these individuals is similar to that assessed to a woodlot operator or to a small business sale?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the same stumpage system applies, but there may be different factors in the calculation. They would probably not have a forest licence; they're probably cutting under a licence to cut as opposed to a forest licence. Under all licences to cut, there is a way of calculating. So if you're cutting on a right-of-way or an ag lease or a ski hill or some other Crown land tenure, it would be calculated in the same way.

J. Wilson: I assume that they're all. . . . I really don't understand all the intricacies of calculating the stumpage. It's something I haven't got a full understanding of. I believe what I heard the minister say is that basically, whether it's a ski hill operator or an ag lease or a woodlot, the same formula is used to come up with the stumpage figure.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I'm informed that it is the same, regardless of the type of tenure. The same method of calculation is used.

J. Wilson: I had here the type of licence that a ski hill operator is working under, and I just can't seem to come up with it at the moment. In the last year, has the market price. . . ? What has been the increase from, say, June 1996 to June 1997 in the lumber market? What increase have we witnessed here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The stumpage is based on the price of U.S. lumber. There's a basket of products. For example, the annual average in '96 for SPF 2-by-4s was $352. In June of this year -- June 27, 1997 -- the price was $366. So it was up. Hemlock squares were up; that's not really relevant to the Cariboo. But say SPF 2-by-10s in 1996 were $399 and this year they are $485. So lumber prices generally are up. And so stumpage is up.

J. Wilson: Okay. We've got 2-by-10s. Does the minister have a figure on 2-by-4s and 2-by-6s?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We do have those figures. We don't have them here. We can get them. But the reason I gave the 2-by-4 price was because that's the main driver of stumpage in the interior.

J. Wilson: If we go by the 2-by-4 price, which is the main driver, we have a $14 increase in the price of 2-by-4s. Now, I would like to play the advocate of the fool and suggest to the minister that perhaps a stumpage review should be instigated, put in place. If the minister wishes to call me a fool over this, I would be more than happy to have him do so, and I won't get mad about it. But these are the facts.

[8:30]

I would like to give another example of an increase. And this one is on a ski hill operation. The assessment that came out in June for July is over $50. This wood is a very high percentage of balsam. The maximum price that the operator can get for that wood, landed in town, is $65. That is top price for that type of wood. The stumpage is over $50. In order to go in and clear a ski run, there is quite an expense in logging. It is not your average logging conditions. You have to go to a lot of work to get the trees down and get them out of there and not create damage to that slope, because then you have to go in, and even after you log it, and do a lot of work to maintain the stability of it, get it seeded and stable. This is another example of the stumpage eating up more than what the operator could get in return for the wood. Even if he just broke even, he'd probably be happy to go and do his work. But he can't do that, because it will cost him money to go out and do the work.

I could go on. I've got a stack of paper like this in my office about people who are in the same situation. I've good woodlot owners that can't turn a wheel; they have to sit and hope that sometime in that five-year cut, the thing will down-cycle and they can go in and take it all in one year, maybe, or in a very short window. And in the last year it hasn't happened; the market hasn't changed. The stumpage constantly rises, but the value of the logs. . . . The people there are tied to the market value of the logs in that area. We don't have a market at the coast for that wood; we sell it in our district, and it goes to the mills in the district, and that's how business is done.

Today there is no one out there that is able to work. A lot of people depend on a small forestry operation. This isn't necessarily the small business program; it's woodlots, it's the person that goes out and puts out five, ten or 15 loads a year. And today, these people have been just completely shut down. They can't operate.

Now, I brought this question up last year during estimates. I asked the minister if he would consider reviewing the way that stumpage is assessed in this area, and he indicated that there may be some problems in it but that they weren't really going to deal with it. That was the impression I got.

The time has come, I think, to deal with it. Perhaps the minister could respond to what I've said here. We would all like to be able to go out and have a job without having to buy a job.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because of the flow of information, it's difficult to respond. I can give you one possible explanation, that in the last quarter, perhaps, of '95, when the average for SPF 2-by-4s was $250. . . . I gave you the current week at $366. The average to date, in '97, is $388. So that's up, over two years, $138. So there's a major change over two years. But it could actually be from one quarter of the last year at the low 

[ Page 5190 ]

price, and then there's a big jump later. Because of the lag effect, you could almost have the effect of two years' difference in price expressed in what you've given me.

If you want to supply the details, we'll look into it and get an explanation of how it is covered. I can't explain it; I just don't know the situation. I would really be interested in knowing what you suggest the solution is, if there's no log market. I know that the point you're making is that the stumpage isn't based on log prices, because there's no log market. It's based on the price of lumber in the U.S., and that's what we've agreed upon. It obviously doesn't serve the purposes of some smaller operators.

Any revision has to take into account that we can't be seen to be revising across the whole system in a way that counteracts the agreement we have with the United States. That was my point -- not that there aren't problems that need to be addressed within the system. It's always going through revisions when somebody puts in more data. If they produce their log cost data, that can be factored in. Some of the small operators don't collect data on their log costs. It has to be an auditable type of information. If you would provide the details of the licence numbers and so on, we'll try to get that explanation.

J. Wilson: Another point. I follow the log market fairly closely in my area. I do have an interest in it. Over the past year the log market in that area hasn't varied by more than $10. The stumpage has doubled, in most cases, but the log market itself has not changed. The explanation I have received from some of the major licensees is that the log market is soft because they don't want to overproduce because of the quota system. They have sufficient wood to meet their quota and a little extra. Anything that they're going to buy, they're not going to pay a lot of money for, because they don't need that wood. If they overproduce, it costs more money in the end. This is the explanation that I have got from this.

The question I have for the minister is: has all of the small business wood -- the woodlot wood and private wood -- been included in the softwood tariff agreement, or is it wood that is quota wood that goes to the major licensees?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You know, one would wonder: if there's a demand for value-added products, for example, and the price is down below what the majors have been paying, why wouldn't somebody be purchasing those logs? We do know -- or we think -- that because they've paid for their basic run, that incremental wood, they could pay more for it. But that, in good times, would be denying people with small log supplies a premium price that the majors can pay. We don't regulate that aspect. The system, as I've admitted, doesn't seem to be working in these cases for those people.

The quota with the United States deals with sawn fibre, sawn wood. If you had an export performance -- if you were exporting in '94 and '95 -- then you would be eligible for a quota. But there are no quotas assigned to small loggers. That would imply that we're encouraging the exports of logs, and we're not.

J. Wilson: What I'm looking for here, and maybe I worded this wrong. . . . When the formula was worked out for the tariff, was it worked out on the basis of the logging cost to the major licensees? It took in, I believe, the super-stumpage; that may have been part of it. I could be wrong there. But you had your logging costs and then you had your stumpage on your quota wood and on your tree farm licences, that type of wood. Was that what was used to set the standards here to put the quota in place?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Quota is volume. Quota is strictly volume-based. Stumpage is calculated by the volume of wood exported times the price of a basket of wood that StatsCan collects the prices on. We calculate the stumpage by multiplying the volume exported times the price. But for the quota itself -- there's no calculation of price on quota.

J. Wilson: I understand that the United States has said: "We will allow so much wood in; that's it. After that, you pay." They have also tied it into the cost of logging. I hear the minister making some worrisome statements that we have to balance this juggling act here because we don't want to upset the Americans by reducing the cost of logging. If the cost of logging wasn't tied to the formula to create the quota. . . . I don't understand why we worry about the cost of logging in this province, if we are simply looking at a quota where, after we reach a certain point, we pay a tariff.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me try to answer that. There are two concerns. One is that the Americans have been concerned in the past that we have been charging so little for our timber that it constitutes a subsidy and therefore damages their market. That's one basis they can start a countervail action on -- and have, in the past. Their overall concern is not the price so much as the volume going in, although that does affect price. They want to keep the price of their own timber up. Their way of restricting it is by having an agreement with Canada -- it's an agreement between Canada and the United States -- as to how much can go in before there's a penalty paid on it.

The concern in these estimates debates and the concern out in the communities about the cost of logging has to do with whether or not the timber that's exported anywhere is done on a profitable basis. That's the concern about the cost of logging.

[8:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The stumpage system uses a calculation of logging costs. There is a survey of operators -- it's all operators, I guess, all licensees.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

J. Wilson: I take it, then, that small business enterprise and woodlot operators were included in this formula?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll ask the member to repeat his question, if he wouldn't mind. I was trying to figure out exactly where you're going, because we're confusing stumpage calculation and the factoring of the costs into the stumpage calculation. I'm trying to figure out what the member really means.

[ Page 5191 ]

J. Wilson: Okay, I'll try to explain myself. In order to establish a cost of logging that would be acceptable to the U.S. lumber tariff agreement -- which I hear the minister saying was necessary -- it is necessary to establish a cost factor in logging so that we won't jeopardize our quota system. Now, in order to establish the cost factor for logging, which groups were included?

The minister has said that all licensees were included in the calculations. If that's the case, that would mean that every woodlot licensee out there would have to submit some cost appraisal form to be included. So if that isn't the case, was it the major licensees that pooled all of their collective information? Was the small business program added to that pool? Was the woodlot licence added to that pool? Or was it simply based on the calculation of the cost of logging for the major licensees when they established the cost, so that the quota system could be put in place?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't provide logging cost data to the United States unless there's a countervail action. They might make an allegation that we're subsidizing and produce some of their own data. We would then counter it with whatever data we had to calculate the stumpage. We don't provide the Americans with cost data. We don't have to provide them with cost data. If there's a countervail action, we just have to present information that we're not subsidizing.

J. Wilson: I guess the point I'm getting at is that there is a discrepancy in stumpage rates here between the small business program, the woodlot program, ski-hill operators and, in a lot of cases, the stumpage that some of the major licensees are paying.

I think that if we don't have to explain every move to the United States, then it leaves us considerable leeway here to try and develop a stumpage system for small business, for woodlot operators, for ski-hill operators and for people holding agriculture leases. It leaves us a lot of leeway to do something in this stumpage appraisal, because they are a very small portion of the fibre that goes across the line. If we don't have to answer, why are we worried about this small portion of the revenue?

It's not a small portion. I believe that 15 percent generates something like 60 percent of the income to the government. This is the figure that I've seen more than once.

What's happened is that the rate has got to the point where it's preventing people from working, and it's creating a lot of unemployment which doesn't register. It's not a union job, it's not a mill job, it's not a major contractor's job; it's small individuals that are out there just trying to grub out a living. They aren't registered under any program, but that unemployment exists today, and it's quite large.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As a matter of fact, the U.S. do watch the small business rate, because they would argue that that is reflective of market value. The stumpage is paid by people bidding timber, and so they watch that and compare that to other calculations. Our experience has been that they use that as an indicator of the true value of logs.

On the coast, apparently, there's been a study of logging costs associated with small operators, woodlots, and their stumpage had been reduced, I'm told, by $7.40. In the interior, they're still studying the woodlot. What they do is actually try to get survey information.

As a rule, when we survey for costs, we get a very low rate of return by those people. They tend not to keep books on their costs. So when you ask for proof of the costs -- how much is yarding, how much is felling, etc. -- they don't generally produce those figures. But quite an effort has been made to get that figure so that they could see if a different calculation is justified.

J. Wilson: I'd like to move on to a little different area here, and it's in the small business program. I believe a portion of the development work under the small business program is done by the ministry. Would the minister lay out the responsibilities of the ministry there, say, in regard to roadbuilding, laying out of lots and this type of thing?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The ministry's responsibility is generally the forest development plan, the operational plans and the primary road construction. The on-block roads are usually left up to the licensee.

J. Wilson: What is the acceptable way of building a road? How is the work carried out within the small business program?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The work is generally carried out through competitive bids, but there are some hourly rates in the construction. It's carried out to Forest Practices Code standards.

J. Wilson: So when we put a road out for bid, what happens with the wood that's on that right-of-way? Is that part of the big contract, or is that the property of the ministry? What happens to it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are various ways of doing it. Sometimes the right-of-way wood is decked and sold. So the right-of-way is cleared, and then the logs are sold out of the deck. Other times, the logs and right-of-way clearing are put in as a bundle, and it's sold that way.

J. Wilson: In the Quesnel forest district a considerable number of roads are put in, and the wood is decked. Does the minister have a figure on the stumpage that the ministry is asking for the wood that has now been decked on the road allowance?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's usually an upset, which varies deck by deck, and there's a bonus asked for in the bid.

J. Wilson: Does the minister have an average figure in mind that he could give me?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have that information here, but we can include it in the information you've asked for about the Quesnel forest district.

J. Wilson: I can probably do without the figure. I know what it is, in a lot of cases. We've got dozens and dozens of loads of logs in our district, and I think that this may not be unique to our district but is like this around the interior. A lot of these have been decked for a year and a half. The stumpage price on this wood is between $55 and $60. That's what the asking price is, through the small business program from the minister. The maximum price that you can get for those logs, landed in town, is $65. That wood is lying out there, and it's rotting.

If there isn't something wrong with our stumpage appraisal system, then maybe I am the fool here. I don't know. 

[ Page 5192 ]

How can we allow a resource to be wasted like this when we need every tree we can get in this province to produce fibre with? Yet the ministry is allowing the wood that it has contracted out to be logged to sit there and rot. There is something very badly wrong with the way we're doing business here.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have an explanation of why there aren't any buyers. Maybe the majors are paying that kind of stumpage, I'm told, for wood right next door on their own. . . . There may be other appraisal factors in there, such as a manufacturer's allowance or something like that -- I don't know. I'd have to know the location and get somebody to look into it. But I'm really surprised. Do you know if this has been reported to the ministry office?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You don't know.

[9:00]

The ministry, through policy that leaves them no flexibility. . . . You can put any manager in there, give him a little leeway, and he'd market it. He would create a log market. He'd put it on the market and sell it. You might get $30 or $40, but at least it has moved. It goes into the system and creates employment. It doesn't lay there and deteriorate.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'll have to get an explanation. I don't know. Wood shouldn't go to rot, and they should have the flexibility to move it. I just want to point out the anomaly here of people talking about expensive wood and here's some cheaper wood. That $65 wood isn't expensive. Something isn't working. We've got a record number of exports, and value exports are up.

It may be that we're experiencing the quota system that has been imposed on us, and maybe industry needs to develop other markets. We can make the wood available. It may be that there aren't other takers even when wood is reasonably priced, because $65 or $70 landed is not expensive. As I travel around the province and talk to people about landed costs and about what they're paying, there are other regions that would die to have that. I'm surprised that somebody from another region isn't trying to come in and buy it, if there's no local market for it.

Dropping the price of wood and giving it away for $30 or $40 isn't an answer, but it's better than wasting it. If it's poor quality, I'd have to concede that. I can't explain what's happening. It's a little difficult without being able to go into analyzing it. In my office, we haven't heard of a problem in the Quesnel district, but I've asked for an explanation, and we'll get you one.

J. Wilson: Perhaps I could help the minister out a little here. Every area has its own market. The market adjacent to that district may have more of a demand for wood, but that area will pay the price that's the difference in trucking from one area to another. This is how you maintain a log market out there that varies from one area to another. It is usually the difference in trucking, and it may be just a few dollars one way or the other.

With the quota system that we've had in place for the last year now, there is no market for wood. They have their quota wood. They have their tree farm licences that they have to maintain, and they will log that. When it comes to additional wood, they don't really want it. They want it at a fire-sale price, yes, but they don't want to pay a reasonable dollar. They will pay the dollar that's equivalent to what you would get if you trucked it 200 miles down the road. Take off your trucking, and you'll end up with basically the same money.

It just happens that we have a soft market in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. It is not a good log market at present, and this is something that I feel needs to be addressed. There has to be a way of doing it. It's just a matter of sitting down and trying to get it worked out so that people can go back to work and make a living. They're not asking for the world. They're just simply asking to be able to operate with a low profit in the process, and I don't think that's being unreasonable.

There was one other thing I had a couple of questions around, and that is the credit system we are using today with regard to offsetting the cost of production out there. It is my understanding that when certain things are done, the government will issue a credit against the stumpage that should be paid to the Crown for the work that's been done. Will the minister fill me in here and maybe list all the activities that will get credits?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have an offset credit system anymore. The old section 88 used to, but I'm not aware of any and my officials aren't aware of any.

J. Wilson: There is no credit in place at the moment in any aspects of the industry out there? Is that what you're saying?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is no credit-to-stumpage system.

J. Wilson: Is there a credit system of some other sort in place to offset the costs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We make payments for work that industry does on outstanding silviculture work for which they have no obligation. It is called "industry outstanding" -- industry dealing with outstanding silviculture work. It is a direct payment; it's not a credit. The only other place we've used the phrase "credit system" is on that voluntary program that was instituted to get a supply of sawn timber to the remanufacturers. That's the only place that we've used the credit system language.

F. Gingell: It's a rare opportunity when we can discuss the auditor general's report with the minister -- we're in the midst of discussions with your officials through the Public Accounts Committee. I trust that the member for Surrey-Whalley will forgive me for a little déj� vu. She's heard most of this before. But it is an opportunity for us to talk directly to the minister, and I hope that Mr. Howard and Ms. Kumi won't advise you of the answers we got from them previously. We often wonder if the recommendations that we deal with do get through to the minister. So I want to take advantage, if I may, of this opportunity to deal with three or four subjects that the auditor general referred to in his report.

[ Page 5193 ]

The focus of the auditor general's work was to deal with the issue of the recording of revenue, the security of revenue and the actions that the Ministry of Forests can take to assure themselves that the ministry is in fact receiving all of the revenue that is due to the Crown. The circumstances of the way this works was somewhat likened to someone going into Safeway with a shopping cart and filling it full of groceries, taking it out to their car, packing the groceries into the car, driving home and then coming back to Safeway and saying: "By the way, I've taken all of these groceries; they cost $32.75, and here's the $32.75." I appreciate that that is quite an exaggeration, but nevertheless the system is based on processes and procedures that are followed by the people that are licensed to harvest the fibre, and the revenue is recorded and collected on the basis of reporting done by them.

One of the issues the auditor general deals with is the issue of cut cruises -- the process whereby a trained and skilled person goes out and estimates the volume of harvestable fibre within that area before a licence is handed out. Subsequently, the results of the actual harvesting are compared to the cruises. The criticism the auditor general had, I think, can really be put to the focus that there's no consistent policy within the various forest districts in the province. Some forest districts are very good and have cruises done all the time and all the proper comparisons are done, and others are not quite as diligent. Perhaps the minister could comment on this issue and advise the committee if changes have taken place or been put in place in the ministry since the auditor general's report to comply with the auditor general's recommendations.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it was done. The ADM of operations sent a memo on March 11 of this year directing regional managers to implement cut-to-cruise reconciliations.

F. Gingell: Has the ministry set up a reporting process that ensures that those instructions are being followed?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is an auditing process, and we will be auditing to make sure that they're compliant with that process.

F. Gingell: One of the issues, of course. . . . And this goes back, you remember, to the auditor general's report of 1990 or 1991, which may be before some of these. . .certainly before the minister was minister. There were some issues to deal with the allocation of human resources and what was the best way of allocating resources and how much should be put into checking plans in the office and how much time should be spent in the field. Those issues, at that point, dealt primarily with logging practices rather than recognition and collection of revenues, but certainly one could tell in 1990 that there were pressures within the Ministry of Forests as to the most effective way to allocate human resources. Putting greater emphasis on cut cruises and subsequent comparisons and evaluations of the final results of cut cruises takes time. Is the minister of the opinion that this can be handled within the present workload of the regional offices, or is something else going to suffer?

[9:15]

F. Gingell: I'm sorry; I must admit I left my hearing aid at home this week, and I didn't catch the response. I wonder if you could answer it again.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We do risk analyses. Based on that, we have risk management plans. We believe that the staff can handle it. Staff is limited, but we believe we can handle it within the risk management plans we have in place.

F. Gingell: Many of the auditor general's recommendations deal with the issue of where to allocate human energy and resources. One of the criticisms they made was that ministry offices were not doing the number of field inspections that are required within their own set of work policy guidelines. Has this issue been dealt with? Has it been dealt with by reducing the number of site inspections required by the guidelines or by increasing the number of site inspections made?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're reviewing the standards now to make sure that they're reasonably effective. We have a task force doing that as we speak. We have proceeded to implement as many of the recommendations as expeditiously as we can.

F. Gingell: The task force is considering the recommendations and making further recommendations to your office. Is this work being done by people within the ministry and creating even greater workload pressures, or did you hire consultants from outside to consider these issues?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We hired a small group of people -- five of them -- from across the province, and they constitute the task force.

F. Gingell: One of the other issues that the auditor general deals with is the fact that logging contractors and trucking contractors and the dryland sorts, etc., work seven days a week and tend to work long hours in the summer, whereas ministry staff, through their BCGEU, I presume -- at any rate, through the contractual arrangements between staff and ministry -- have been working to a more rigid timetable. I understand that changes are being made to that to allow more flexible work hours. Could the minister advise the committee if such practices are presently in place or if there is still a plan for future action?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, there already are some off-hour inspections being done, but we are in the process of having the ADM of operations direct the regional managers to do more off-hour inspections.

F. Gingell: I've never gone through a set of estimates questions as quickly as this before. Perhaps we should always deal with it in Public Accounts first.

Another issue is the issue of reporting of forest crimes: concerned citizens advising the ministry when they believe that timber or fibre is being stolen, or other issues. In dealing with the revenue issues rather than the Forest Practices Code issues, has the ministry got people who are at the end of some reporting system, so that questions about improper or criminal actions regarding forest resources are looked into, followed up on and dealt with?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is a report being prepared. Earlier in the day I answered the question. On July 15 we intend to issue a report, which will include a report on thefts of timber and what progress has been made on enforcement and actions through the courts.

[ Page 5194 ]

F. Gingell: I'd like to just stop for one second and ask one basic question that I haven't got clear in my mind at the moment, and I should have. At what point is stumpage or royalty revenue recognized?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's recognized when it's scaled.

F. Gingell: One would hope that the procedures in the woods ensure that scaling takes place immediately that the logs are brought to a place where they can be scaled -- which I presume would be a dryland sort -- or where they may be being decked or set. In the arrangements with licence holders or contractors, are there any regulations or contract terms that deal with the timing of the scale?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The scaling regulations say that it should be scaled as soon as possible. Quite often there is a designation as to which designated scaling site the logs should go to.

F. Gingell: But that scaling site is determined when the contract is originally let or when the harvesting plans are approved. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it's designated during the planning approval.

F. Gingell: There's also a document -- an important document, as I understand it -- called a load description slip. That is not a scale, as I understand it, but it's a description of the pieces and perhaps the type or species on each truckload. Could the minister please advise the committee what role an LDS plays within the internal control functions and how it is checked off, as it were, against scales?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is a bill of lading and would be used for tracking and reconciliation. We're in the process of requiring that LDSs are used. It isn't currently the practice in all places. We've got a draft of the system; the issuance and reconciliation procedures have been drafted. They are being circulated for comment by July 15. So we're in the process of implementing that particular recommendation of the auditor general.

F. Gingell: As I understand it -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- these LDSs deal with fibre after it's been cut but before its movement to a location where it will be scaled. Am I correct in the supposition that this is a prescaling count?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It really is both. If it's being trucked from a scale site somewhere else, it will have to have the bill of lading with it.

F. Gingell: One of the criticisms the auditor general had was the sporadic use of them -- although sporadic is the wrong word, because that makes it sound like they were used rarely, whereas they're used a lot, I think. But there are occasions when they aren't. There's also the fact that they're not prenumbered. So I would just appreciate a commitment from the minister that when this new form is designed and the new procedures come into place -- which is going to happen pretty soon -- the forms will be prenumbered and printed in one contract or in such a manner that careful control and custody can be kept of them.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just want to say that this is a huge workload issue for the ministry, and we are proceeding with it. We are studying how we can best use it, but we intend to proceed with prenumbered load slips.

F. Gingell: I would just like to add into the record that we finished up a lengthy discussion about check-scaling with the feeling that the check scales done by the provincial government scalers seem to indicate that the quality and the accuracy of the industry scales is very, very good. So that was comforting to hear.

[9:30]

One finished up, at the end of looking into those issues, with the conviction that there was a mix of people not asking the questions that deserved to be asked. And some changes in accounting practice were being done -- a recording practice was being done in one place, and people in other places didn't recognize that.

So one year later, how has the minister assured himself that the regular recording of forestry revenues is accurate, is proper, is up to date, and that there won't be a similar fiasco this year to what we had the year before last?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, what we do as a ministry is provide forecasts to the Minister of Finance, and then he decides what estimates he puts into the budget. So the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Finance have agreed on the methodology by which we calculate and propose it. I think both ministries know each other's systems, and there is extensive sharing of data.

F. Gingell: For the year 1996-97, forest revenues had originally been estimated at $1.7 billion. The revised forecast, tabled on -- when was it? April 30 of this year? March 31 or March 30 -- is a fraction under $1.4 billion. We are now three months later. We should have a final number now for the year ended March 31, 1997. Can the minister advise the committee what that amount is?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. The final amount. . . . It's unaudited, but as near as we can tell at this point, it's $1.83 billion.

F. Gingell: That's obviously before you've paid your pound of flesh to FRBC.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it's with the FRBC and the logging tax included.

F. Gingell: The amount that I referred to of $1.397 billion was with FRBC out, not including the money that you collected and paid over to FRBC and not including logging taxes. Does the minister have that net number?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Again unaudited: $1.407 billion.

[ Page 5195 ]

F. Gingell: That's $300 million less than the original budget but $10 million more than the revised forecast that you had tabled with this year's budget.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

This year's anticipated revenue is shown as $1.387 billion. That, of course, is predicated on harvesting volumes, log prices and pulp prices, how the overseas markets are, the weather and all those things. I appreciate that the minister won't have numbers for June, but you must have preliminary revenues for April and May which are compared to the original projections for those months. I'm sure you don't come to a number for the year; you do it on a more scientific and periodic basis by months. Can the minister advise if this year looks like you're ahead or behind?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have the numbers with us here, but we're on track.

F. Gingell: No one has advised you that you should write a letter to the Minister of Finance advising that forest revenues are substantially below budget.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No. In the fall we will revise the estimates based on our experience, and we will advise the minister accordingly.

F. Gingell: If I may, I will yield the floor to Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: With respect to managing the $1.4 billion in revenue, I just want to make sure that I understood correctly. I thought I heard the minister say that his ministry together with the Ministry of Finance manages the Forests revenues in the Forests budget. Is that what the minister said? I'd just like some clarification on that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What happens is that we give our forecast to the Minister of Finance, and he takes it into account when he does the estimate of what our forecast is. He takes that into account. We provide that to him, and he makes the estimate.

R. Thorpe: For a ballpark figure here, I'll use the $1.4 billion number as I go forward. Is your ministry responsible for managing that number, or is the Ministry of Finance responsible for managing it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Ministry of Forests produces that number. That's the number we have produced this year, and that's the number the Minister of Finance used. We're responsible for producing a number that we're satisfied will be what we believe the Crown will collect from our management of the timber resource.

R. Thorpe: We seem to. . . . I can't quite hear the music, but we do seem to be dancing around here. I guess the $1.4 billion. . . . I'm going to approach it another way. If we come up short for whatever reason, is it the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests to be accountable for that difference, or is it the Finance minister's office that is accountable for the difference? Who is accountable?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Ultimately, the Minister of Finance is responsible for whatever number he chooses to use in the estimates. If we forecast wrong, then we're to blame, provided he uses our number. If he uses our number, and we get it wrong and don't do a good forecast, we're to blame, but he accepts responsibility for the figure he uses in the estimates.

R. Thorpe: So the number of $1.387 billion is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. Could the Minister of Forests please advise: on a monthly basis, then, does the Ministry of Finance know those numbers? Are they managing those numbers on a monthly basis?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We provide monthly figures to the Ministry of Finance. They may do various things with them, but we don't know. We provide the numbers to the Ministry of Finance on a monthly basis.

R. Thorpe: Maybe it's because it's getting late and everybody's tired and we've had a long day, but we seem to have such a casual approach here to a huge financial resource of this province: "Wow, we give an estimate, and it goes over here, and if they like it, they accept it, and if they don't like it, they don't accept it; maybe they're accountable and maybe they're not accountable." I guess it's no wonder that we don't know what's going on with our finances in this province.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Excuse me -- did you want to say something?

The Chair: Order, hon. members. The hon. member has the floor.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister confirm that his ministry -- and, in fact, he himself -- knows on a monthly basis what revenue is being produced for British Columbians and transferred to the treasury of British Columbia and the Minister of Finance? Does the Minister of Finance know that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: First of all, there's nothing casual about the approach. I never used the word "maybe." You asked me a direct question about who is responsible for the estimate in the books, and I say that in the estimates book it is the Minister of Finance. I accept the responsibility that the Ministry of Forests takes to provide a forecast number. We make certain assumptions; we spell out the assumptions. So I just want to clear the record that there's nothing casual about it. It's taken seriously.

I don't review the revenues monthly. I periodically get reports on how we're doing. I ask the questions, but the Ministry of Forests reports out the actual revenue on a monthly basis so it can be tracked. This year we know we're tracking close, but they are still estimates. We don't sell more or less depending on whether we're on the estimate. I mean, all it is, is an estimate.

Actually, with respect to the estimation of finances and expenditures, the record of this government is quite good if you go back historically. In fact, the amount that we're over or under is minuscule.

R. Thorpe: I'm not so sure that this is the place to get into a debate on the financial record of this government. Therefore I won't nibble on that, and I don't think the minister threw it out there for me to nibble on. I guess I'm intrigued that the Minister of Forests is responsible for managing the numbers and sending it across. When does the Ministry of Forests 

[ Page 5196 ]

know what the actual numbers are versus what the estimated numbers are? What's the lag time in broad terms? Is it one months, two months? When do you have actuals?

[9:45]

R. Thorpe: I understand that there are minor delays, but in the broadest terms is it fair for me to conclude that within 60 days -- I mean, we're not worried about a few thousand dollars -- the Ministry of Forests has a very accurate feel as to what the actual revenue is that they have received?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Until we're really comfortable, we have to wait. We call it an unaudited figure. When the auditor general has looked at it and given his opinion on it, then we're reasonably comfortable that that's the amount.

R. Thorpe: I do understand, especially at the end of the year, that there are unaudited statements. I'm sure that your audit only takes place once a year. That would be the standard practice. Is it fair to conclude that by the end of July -- some 60 days after the revenues that have been booked for the month of May -- the Ministry of Forests actually knows the revenues that it has received?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have gone to a full accrual method now, and we feel more confident that that method produces a more accurate figure that we can track on a monthly basis.

R. Thorpe: Who actually manages the collection of the accounts receivable from the billings?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The revenue branch of the Ministry of Forests.

R. Thorpe: Does the revenue branch employ a collection agency or have any need to employ collection agencies at all?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have collection officers on staff, we have a good record of collection, and we do it directly.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise of the amount of bad debts that the Ministry of Forests incurred last year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm informed that we have the number. Whether we have it here is another question; we're looking for it.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress and resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 6:40 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)

D. Symons: I wonder if we might move on to some of the regional transit systems around the province. I have some questions on that.

The one thing I did note -- and I must say this and be congratulatory to B.C. Transit -- is that I did send letters out to the mayors and regional districts asking questions about the transit service supplied to those areas that have it, both the paratransit and the regular transit systems. Of those that responded, virtually to a person they responded that they were satisfied with the service. Now, I didn't go out to the users; I asked the mayors and suppliers of the service.

I am detecting from that -- and maybe it's where you're moving with the Vancouver regional district -- that the more they have their hands in, the more they take responsibility for what's there and the less likely they are to criticize the system that's there, because they had some input into what's going on. But certainly there was virtually nothing in the way of criticism of the transit system, and I think it's partly because they have a considerable amount of say. Transit, through the service in Victoria, supplies them with what they are willing to put in place and what they willing to pay their share of.

I don't know if there are any comments you'd like to make on the regional transit system before I move to just a few specific questions.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I entirely agree with the member's supposition about why it is effective. Certainly it would be wonderful to replicate that kind of relationship in the greater Vancouver regional district, both from a funding and theoretically a governance point of view.

D. Symons: In the Kelowna Daily Courier of earlier this year, there was a headline that basically said: "Bus Costs Go Through the Roof; Taxpayers' Share of Transit Costs Up Almost 40 Percent." I gather they were adding 15 new low-floor buses, and this had doubled Kelowna's debt charges for transit to almost $1 million. They were somewhat concerned about that. Was there anything particular about Kelowna that caused them to have these concerns with expansion of the service?

[ Page 5197 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, that increase in cost was matched by a 40 percent increase in service, as well.

D. Symons: I guess the two would naturally go together.

Armstrong also had some concerns along that particular line. I gather that it's more the regional district that put the Armstrong-Enderby service into Vernon. They like the idea of having that connection into Vernon for shopping and other reasons, but it hasn't been cost-effective. I wonder if we can just get an update on what's happening there or is likely to happen to that particular service.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. That was a new service implemented at the end of last year, in December of '96. There is a period of customizing a new service to the public using it. We're monitoring it very closely. In fact, we actually made changes to this service in May of this year to better match customer demand, and we will monitor its utilization.

D. Symons: Prior to the legislative session beginning, I did a little bit of a tour of the Island and along the Sunshine Coast and back to Vancouver, stopping in and speaking to people regarding the issues of Ferries and Transit. One thing that was pointed out regarding the Powell River side and going down to Langdale and so forth was that the bus service and the ferry schedules, starting at the Comox side, don't fit in very well. It's very difficult for somebody coming from Comox to Powell River and carrying through to Langdale to really make the trip in one day. It takes pretty well a whole day to make that particular trip, because of the bus and the ferries not coinciding. I don't know if there is a solution to that particular problem, but it would be something that could increase the ridership if everything coordinated nicely.

[6:45]

D. Symons: Another issue that's arisen at this time is the new service into Duke Point by B.C. Ferries. I believe the fact is that there are only three bus services into that facility -- that go into Cedar and the MacMillan Bloedel mill and the neighbourhood. So only three of eight sailings into that particular ferry facility have bus service into the city. It's quite far from the city, and I gather it costs in the neighbourhood of $17 to catch a taxi, which is considerably different than bus fare. I asked the regional district about that, and they basically said there was no increased funding in order to put in a service there. Had there been coordination between B.C. Transit and B.C. Ferries. . . . It's been two years in the making for Duke Point, and yet the service doesn't seem to be there.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Of course, we did work with B.C. Ferries on that, and we were looking at private sector service, which actually collapsed just prior to the opening of the terminal. We immediately replaced that with B.C. Transit service on three of the eight trips, but since that time the private sector arrangement has been rejuvenated, and we're now in a situation where there will just be one route that doesn't -- to date, anyway -- have bus service. So there are substantial improvements on the way.

D. Symons: I was glad to hear that. I would gather, then, that the improvement. . . . You say it's for all but one of the sailings now? That must be a very recent change, because I had a phone call on the weekend from somebody who was irate, basically. I gather she commutes three times a week back and forth and found that the service just didn't suit her. She was going to go back to her car, and she preferred to not use the car because of the ferry fare, but she felt that now with the taxi she was paying for, there were no savings. It's good to hear that the service is there.

I think there's a potential for more and more people to go as foot passengers on the ferry system, if they can connect at each end reasonably well with the bus. You have that done fairly well at Tsawwassen so that people who are heading into Vancouver can meet the ferries that run from Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen. But they don't tie in at that end with the ferries that come from Duke Point and run the mid-Island service, I believe.

So again, there seems to be a problem for people there. They have to wait until the hourly service comes in for the Swartz Bay runs, rather than having something that coordinates with their particular run. I know it's a problem bringing two buses in in a period of an hour to deal with two different ferry schedules. But again, the more we can accommodate those, the more ways we can get people not bringing their cars, which cuts down the pollution in the world and gets people used to the idea of using transit rather than cars.

The other question I have goes to a slightly different area from this. I was talking to mayors awhile ago, and in two or three other areas I've heard of the problem which deals with what I'll refer to as "two-bus systems." In many communities outside the lower mainland, there are school bus and public transit systems. Quite often it seems that they're the same general areas. There might be a better utilization of taxpayers' dollars, both on the school side and on the Transit side, if somehow one service could be provided that would serve both the needs.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're well aware of the concerns, as well, and we are actually working on an integrated plan now with school boards, municipalities and B.C. Transit to offer an integrated service. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, because each community, as the member probably appreciates, has different school hours and different public transit needs. But we are working on that as we speak, which I think will resolve a substantial problem.

D. Symons: Paratransit and handyDART system were the areas that were sometimes mentioned when I was writing to various people asking questions. But by and large, in the areas outside the lower mainland and Victoria, those systems seem to serve the needs for the people fairly well. There does seem to be a problem in the lower mainland, though, where you seem to have a system set up where about one-third of the buses in the lower mainland are accessible for people who are mobility-challenged, but not to the extent that they have to be in a wheelchair or carried on. Only 25 percent of the bus stops are accessible bus stops.

Portland has a rule much like our request-stop system that B.C. Transit put in a few years ago, where basically they'll let the person that's mobility-challenged off wherever it's handiest within the neighbourhood. They don't have to change each transit stop to accommodate a bus that might have a lift or something on it. They will simply stop at a place that's convenient for the person to get off. It saves them a lot of money in rejigging each of the transit stops. When the bus is there they can let a person off that has these problems; they'll simply choose a place along the roadway that's suitable.

[ Page 5198 ]

Has B.C. Transit considered something like. . . ?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, for the communities outside of Vancouver and Victoria, this is under active consideration. Vancouver and Victoria are different in that the rigours of meeting the schedule are a little bit more intense, although I am advised that the driver does have the discretion to stop anywhere -- and does, as long as it's on the route and safe.

D. Symons: I mentioned the request-stop thing, which came about before the minister was responsible. It was put in a few years ago, particularly for women and elderly people in the evening, and I gather it's still an evening one for the general public. But for the people with mobility issues, I gather you'll do it whenever possible.

Going along with that, I gather that it's only near about 25 percent of the people who are on the handyDART lists for special transit who actually require a special vehicle. The remaining people are mobile -- not to the extent that they might be able to walk a few blocks to a bus stop, but they can get into a vehicle on their own or with a little bit of assistance where they don't need the wheelchair arrangement or anything beyond that.

It would seem that if that's the case, we could use taxis more frequently than we do. I know we have a taxi saver program that gives people the option of taking taxis. It does cost more, because they pay 50 percent of the fare of the taxi saver program, I believe. Could we not make better use of the taxis, in the sense that so many of the people could use a taxi as a vehicle if there were more incentive for them to do that? I gather the taxi service is actually cheaper than the handyDART service stop rate.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, interesting. There are going to be changes in how we offer public transit to people who are mobility-challenged. The member is quite right that there are efficiencies to be had in the taxi saver or taxi supplement program. There is increasing use of that program, and at a much more rapid rate than handyDART. The population that needs assistance to use public transit is more served now as well by the low-floor buses being accessible, etc., so the statistics that the member describes will probably change very soon in terms of who uses what form of transit. This is an area where there's huge demand. I think it's a very important demand that we meet, from not only a transit point of view but a social program point of view, and we are making sure that we're doing it in the most cost-effective way to meet the needs of the most people.

D. Symons: I guess the minister, being Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Seniors, certainly knows that we have an aging population and that that will make what we're talking about today even more relevant as the years go by, as it does with health care costs and with transit costs. This has to be taken into consideration; there will be more and more people needing special services.

In my response to the letters I sent out asking for information, the city of Oliver-Osoyoos sent back something and talked about taxi scrip, which I assume is the taxi saver program. They talked about something called taxiDART. I wasn't familiar with that particular term, so I'm wondering if it is simply taxi saver by another name. What's the difference between taxi scrip, taxiDART and the taxi saver program?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a term that's been coined by the community. It actually delivers handyDART-like services -- group trips, etc. -- using the local taxi services as opposed to handyDART vans.

D. Symons: That, again, is something that is funded partially through B.C. Transit? It's part of this whole program?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, in this case it's actually funded totally by the municipality. We've offered planning support, but no, it is a totally municipally funded service.

D. Symons: In spite of what I maybe told the minister earlier, I'm very close to the end. But I did come across a few things, and maybe I can throw them out. If you have the answers ready, fine; if not, you might just pass them on to me at some future date. We're virtually at the end at this point.

[7:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that kind of concept is constantly being examined. But the issue is: if you increase the subsidy to one group, you have to find it from somewhere else. To date -- I have to say I agree with this -- both the Vancouver and the Victoria regional transit commissions have decided to make sure that the consistent long-term commuter-type user of public transit is the one that gets the most support from governments.

D. Symons: Just to continue on with a few of these odds and ends, I'm looking at the annual report that was so nicely given to me, and there was a comment in here about the employee transportation administrator. It has to do with the TDM officer responsible for related initiatives, including this particular one. If that's something that isn't at the top of the minister's head, I'll expect her maybe to give me something; but if the answer is no, good.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We talked about that a little bit earlier. It's where B.C. Transit is offering services to large employers to assist them in training their own employees to car-pool and group-travel, to lessen the pressure on the single-occupant vehicle. And it's proving quite successful.

D. Symons: I just didn't recognize it by the name, then. Just one other thing from that report, and then this is basically it. There was something under labour relations in the annual report, referred to as a mutual gains bargaining arrangement that they're working on between B.C. Transit and its three unions. I'm wondering if you might be able to give me a little bit of a flavour of what mutual gains bargaining entails.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a style of bargaining where it's not adversarial. It used to be described. . . . There was a book written: Getting to Yes. You may be familiar with it; I think it's Fisher that wrote it. Actually, I know this from another movie. 

[ Page 5199 ]

I could go on at length, as a matter of fact. What it is, is a consensual style of bargaining that is problem-solving. Actually, the corporation has met with some success -- some very difficult challenges in the area, but some success.

D. Symons: So maybe on that note, "with some success" and a different approach to bargaining and some success there, that would be a point to thank the minister very much for her forthrightness in answering. I'm impressed with the minister's answers, to be honest, because I've seen the ministers change over the years I've dealt with this. You've done a very nice job in answering all my questions. I thank you very much.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I must say, this is what I think estimates are good for, which is to have a useful exchange that actually is informative. I have to say that the critic for Transit has certainly conducted the estimates in a way that has been beneficial for me from a governing point of view but has highlighted where we need to move forward, as well. So I again thank him and his colleagues.

With that, I would move vote 43.

Vote 43 approved.

The committee rose at 7:05 p.m.

The committee met at 7:09 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

Hon. L. Boone: It's a pleasure to be here to talk about the ministry's budget. Unfortunately, this year's budget for Transportation and Highways is 23 percent lower than it was last year. It's not something that I'm happy about -- or many people in this province -- but it's very necessary if we are to reduce government spending and make sure that we protect health and education.

I recognize that each and every one of us, opposition members and government members, if there are some here -- there's one, thank you -- has a wish list of projects within our communities that are very important to all of us. Many of them are essential, many of them are safety-oriented, many of them are reducing travel time, some are relieving congestion, and some are just making roads more usable. I understand all of you who desire such improved transportation needs in our community, and I only hope that you understand that neither I nor the ministry has the financial abilities to meet all of these demands until such time as the budgetary problems of the government are reduced. Last year opposition members requested $2.6 billion worth of projects. I can only hope that this year the requests are a little more realistic and that they limit their expectations there.

We are committed to doing the best we can within limited resources. Maintenance budgets are virtually unchanged at $300 million. That represents 60 percent of the ministry's operating budget.

We have taken considerable cuts at the administration level, and that's been tough to do. Unfortunately, our rehab budget has been hard hit -- from $138 million to $80 million this year. We are giving priority this year to the main routes, and we are trying to address particular needs as they arise. An additional $2.6 million, for example, has gone into the Peace, due to the heavy snow and rainfall of last year and, I might add, years and years of neglect that even the members there recognize happened long before we became government. We will have some additional costs due to slides, and we are currently assessing those areas and determining what our actual costs will be.

This year's TFA budget has a reduction from $343 million last year to $290 million. As the Premier said, all projects previously announced will go ahead, but not necessarily at the same time. The capital review that we went through and our desire to control and reduce the debt mean that some projects will have to be delayed. That's unfortunate, but it's necessary.

We are working hard to find new and innovative ways to deliver projects that all of us want. Public-private partnerships are very important to us, and we're stressing finding ways and means of funding anything. If anybody comes forward with new and innovative means and ways of finding dollars or stretching our dollars a little bit further, we will certainly consider them.

One example of that is the Mission interchange. The cost for that interchange will be split three ways: the municipality taking a third of the cost, the developer taking a third of the cost and the province assuming a third of the cost. That means we are able to leverage our dollars a lot further, and this project was able to be put ahead, whereas it would have been further down the project line. Another example is the federal-provincial infrastructure program.

We are also looking at tolls. We are very seriously considering tolls in many areas, as are jurisdictions across this country -- New Brunswick, Ontario. Every area around that has infrastructure needs is looking at them. We must find new ways of financing projects, as our needs as a province far exceed the taxpayers' ability or willingness to pay.

Although the TFA is noted for funding major transportation routes, there are two small programs I want to talk about a little bit. They're very well received programs. One is a cycling network program. We just announced that program yesterday. That program originally started in 1995. There was $2 million from the province and $2 million from municipalities. This year we have expanded that to $6 million: $2 million from the province, $2 million from municipalities and $2 million from the federal government. That means we're able to put $6 million into that program this year. It's a very small amount of money, but I can tell you that it's well received by all of those communities that receive it, as it's putting dollars towards something that helps reduce congestion and pollution. In fact, it is very healthy for those that like to actually get out and bicycle; it's a great way to get exercise.

The other one is the local airport assistance program. It gives assistance to small communities, to help them improve or build or do something to the very small airstrips they have throughout this province. Again, it's a very small amount of money -- $2 million -- but those communities that receive the money are very grateful and recognize that it's very important to their communities.

Last year was an exciting year for us. We saw the opening of a lot of infrastructure programs across the province. The Beatton River crossing is finally completed. For years it was a joke up in the north that we had the bridges up there with no roads connecting them in the Peace. Well, we now have the 

[ Page 5200 ]

roads connecting those bridges. We saw the opening of the Westview overpass on the North Shore, the Johnson-Mariner Way, the Mary Hill bypass, the Barnet-Hastings HOV lane and parts of the Island Highway. These are just a few of the projects that were completed.

[7:15]

Since last year, we've had a number of different initiatives that I'm very proud of, aside from the construction of roads. One we finally got going -- and I must say it took longer than I wanted it to -- was vehicle impoundment, whereby vehicles of people caught driving without a valid driver's licence are impounded. It's a very important project, and it's very important to the policing authorities out there. The administrative driving prohibition is another one. It was a long time coming, longer than I wanted, but again it's very important for safety on our highways. That was part of the initial traffic safety initiatives package. They are finally on stream. So now it's up to the AG's department to actually enforce them.

The truck safety review was completed on time. I want to thank all of those who participated in the review. Some excellent recommendations came out of that. They've been well received by the public, and they will go a long way to making our roads safer.

Last year, as I sat in this room, many of you complained about the Motor Carrier Commission. I want to thank the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, the member for Kootenay and the member for Okanagan-Boundary for the hard work that they did in dealing with the issue of deregulation.

Doug Allen, the new chair of the MCC, has been working hard to make the commission more efficient. He has managed to reduce the processing time, and decisions are being received much sooner. Now, I'm not going to say that there won't be some unhappy people out there, because as with all commissions there are still going to be some people who get turned down, and they're not going to be happy. At least they're going to get turned down sooner than they were before. They'll get an answer sooner, which is what most people want.

The MCC review that the member opposite, the critic, was part of dealt with how we as a province would respond to the federal deregulation of interprovincial carriers in January of 1998. Four recommendations came out of that review -- again, they've been widely received throughout the industry: the elimination of tariff rates; the elimination of filing schedules; the elimination of general freight classification; and the elimination of geographic barriers. Those have been received by us. We're working on them, and hopefully, we will have approval of these recommendations soon.

In addition to these safety initiatives, we've also had an aggressive program to inspect taxis in the lower mainland. Today we announced a program to increase safety for flag-persons -- all those working on construction projects. The essence of the program that we announced was to double the fine for people in construction zones. Our motto is: "Obey the sign or pay double the fine." In the last four years, we've had four individuals killed in those construction areas as a result of people not obeying signs and driving in a very unsafe manner through them. We've also had 48 individuals who have been injured. So I'm really pleased that we have brought that in.

In conclusion, I'd like to acknowledge the hard work of everyone in the ministry. This has been a stressful year. We've gone through reorganization, downsizing and uncertainty in the future for families. It's not an easy time for people to go through those areas; however, ministry staff have continued to serve the public. In addition to that, they sat down and gave some excellent ideas to the ministry on ways to save money. We've implemented many of those recommendations that came from staff, and I really do appreciate the work that they've done. I understand that this has been a difficult time for everyone. I just want to say thank you to all staff for helping us through this very tough period. Despite what they may feel, I believe very strongly that their work is valued, and they're valued people.

B. Barisoff: I learned a little bit of a lesson last year, in the fact that the hon. minister covers a lot of ground in her opening remarks. So I just thought that I might respond first, before we get into some of the actual questions. Before I begin my remarks today, I'd like to respond to the comment that the hon. minister made in the House on May 13 about Transportation and Highways. In this chamber, according to the Hansard report, she said: "Finally, somebody shows some interest in our highways in this Legislature -- the first question this year."

Well, I'd like to reassure the minister at this time that I take my job quite seriously in my role as opposition critic for Highways. In answer to the minister's concern, I want to reassure her, along with the member for Peace River South and others on this side of the House, that we are all vitally concerned with what happens to the roads and highways in this province.

I hope that when I have addressed some of these concerns, the minister will ask herself the same question: how much concern does the government have about the state of the infrastructure of B.C.? There are a number of compelling issues in Transportation and Highways, which are driving the agenda as we approach the twenty-first century. They are: the population growth at a rate of 80,000 to 100,000 each year; increasing urban congestion, particularly in areas such as the greater Vancouver regional district, Vancouver Island and the Okanagan Valley; overcapacity use and growing congestion of major highways and ferry corridors; an aging infrastructure which has reached a critical stage for our highways, bridges, ferries and buses; increasing competition and demands on our seaports, railways and airports; transportation safety issues, including drivers, trucks and commercial vehicles, rising insurance and medical costs of accidents. These are difficult challenges for any government to face with increasing costs and limited financial resources.

Taxpayers have emptied their pockets. It means that the government must be more cost-efficient and innovative in meeting these challenges. It means sound fiscal management and policies that will encourage cost-efficiency and sound economy. If we were to compare this to the everyday challenges facing households in British Columbia, it means we 

[ Page 5201 ]

would have to carefully evaluate our resources and obligations; make a budget and stick to it; spend less than what we earn; save a little for a rainy day; shop for the best value; and take care of what we have so it will last -- and that's referring to the infrastructure. In short, we have to be good managers of our system.

If we are to be good managers, we are likely to meet crises unprepared or, worse still, not to be able to meet our obligations, at which point we begin to take more desperate steps. . . . What does this have to do with Transportation and Highways? It's simple really. In fact, it's just plain common sense. Let's take one example of an issue that I have already mentioned and examine how this NDP government stands up against basic fundamental questions that we all understand -- the aging infrastructure.

Let's talk about the aging infrastructure which is our existing roads, highways and bridges in B.C. In "Going Places," a publication developed by BCTFA which we're dealing with today, the government has identified some major transportation and highways issues and supportive facts. The province is the custodian of $14 billion worth of infrastructure. We have 45,000 kilometres of road in the province, with an average pavement age of 15 years. We have 2,500 bridges, with over 600 of these bridges needing replacement in the next ten years. Sixty percent of those bridges are either wooden or over 40 years old. I think I mentioned in our briefing that I was going to bring up some of those bridges, and one in particular.

The Lions Gate Bridge, of course, is the major example of a structure due for major refurbishment or replacement. A five-year plan for action by this government is up. A shortlist of options was promised for the fall of 1994, and a final decision promised for the fall of 1996. We're past that date. Hopefully, we will see a successful private-public proposal on this soon, as I'm sure that the minister realizes the critical importance of this project. I'm sure you'll be hearing more from the members from North Vancouver and West Vancouver when we reach the Lions Gate Bridge in the overall estimates.

There are some other facts that I would just like to bring to the minister's attention. The current budget for Transportation and Highways is approximately $580 million. There is an overall budget reduction of almost 20 percent. That disturbs me, as the critic for the area. Even though I know that we have to look for these kinds of things, it is disturbing to see us going in the opposite way. The BCTFA, a Crown corporation responsible for capital projects, was given a budget of $350 million last year. Over half of that budget, $176 million, was used up on the Vancouver Island Highway project. Rehabilitation of roads has been reduced from a budget figure of $139 million last year to a proposed $65.4 million for this year -- less than half. It's one of the areas that we'll touch on and look into deeply, because it greatly concerns me with roads that are 15 years old.

Maintenance will get $379 million, down approximately $8.5 million from $387,550,000. According to "Going Places," the average age of pavement is to be 15 years old and it's at its critical point of acceleration of deterioration. This is one of the big concerns that we'll have to look at. The cost of $60,000 per kilometre to restore poor roads at 12 years will quickly jump as high as $300,000 per kilometre at the 18-year mark. Another area that I'll canvass while we go through the estimates. . . . According to "Good Roads Cost Less," experts say that poor highways could cost motorists an extra $165 million a year in wear and tear, parts and extra fuel consumption, not to mention the safety hazards. I know this minister is very conscious of safety hazards out on B.C. roads. She's spent a lot of time working at that. I think these are some of the areas that we'll have to look at.

The economic impact of the aging infrastructure in the areas of trade, business, tourism, etc., is enormous. According to "Good Roads Cost Less," just to protect our investment we need to repave about 1,000 kilometres of highway every year and replace 600 bridges in the next ten years. That's a great task that we're going to have to look at. I know it's going to be difficult. Last year the budget was $139 million; this year it's $65.4 million -- less than half. In my estimation, we should probably be looking at somewhere around $250 million just to try to keep up, never mind fall behind, as is the direction we're going.

Again, I would like to quote from this government's publication, "Going Places":

"Doing nothing is unacceptable. The longer we continue to defer, the greater will be the total cost. Congestion in rapidly growing urban areas is at a point where it's eroding our quality of life, with much longer commuting times, excessive energy consumption, and in some areas, deteriorating air quality. Competitive pressures, if not met, will result in the loss of jobs for British Columbians."

Let's talk about the Vancouver Island Highway project. It's certainly a worthy project in the province. What does the auditor general have to say about the performance of this government in its 1996-97 report? Let me quote some of the following statements:

"The scope and the budget for the Vancouver Island Highway project has changed considerably over the life of the project. . .preliminary cost estimates for the project from 'in excess of $600 million' to approximately $1.3 billion and has also significantly affected what will actually be constructed."

"Earlier value-engineering reviews conducted on the project designs might have resulted in better value for money."

"The designs for the Vancouver Island Highway project will provide adequate value for money.

"Design management. . .is appropriate and adequate."

"Facility planning is satisfactory."

"The ministry's design standards are generally adequate."

[7:30]

". . .we believe the ministry would benefit from reviewing these standards and their application to ensure that they promote cost-effective planning and design decisions."

[ Page 5202 ]

The project agreement with Highway Constructors Ltd., a subsidiary of BCTFA, means a closed shop. This is not an open tendering process. The minister and I went through this last year, complaining about what was taking place there. This government is so satisfied with their own performance that they extended the closed-shop policy to construction on the HOV lanes scheduled for this year. They moved it off Vancouver Island onto the mainland.

In regard to the Vancouver Island Highway project, it has been suggested that the costs of having a closed shop could have been as high as 20 percent. Actually, I've heard figures even higher than that -- up to 30 percent over and above the actual budget increases. If we calculate 20 percent of $1.3 billion, it's conceivable that this government might have saved $200 million if they were willing to offer an open tender, free enterprise hiring contract policy.

What could we do with $200 million? We could build 40 new schools at an average price of $5 million, thereby eliminating a large number of portable classrooms in the province. We could pay for the cardiac surgery in B.C. and eliminate the current waiting lists. In this part of it, we could restore 3,000 kilometres of road, at a cost of $60,000 a kilometre.

So what are some of the government's solutions to the mismanagement? Freeze all capital spending and eliminate millions of dollars in promises? Plan to raid $400 million from the forest renewal fund? Download aging infrastructure to the municipalities at grossly underestimated cost projections?

Let's share some of the comments of the press early in 1997. January 8, 1997, the Province:

"A new study of B.C.'s freight transportation system points to clogged highways operating at beyond capacity and design, with worse congestion to come."

"Canada's decaying and congested transportation infrastructure was highlighted as the tourism industry's biggest headache."

"The provincial government will review its controversial plan to load hundreds of millions of dollars worth of highway maintenance costs on to local taxpayers. . . . A total annual burden of $8 million. . .overlooks hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs. The government forgot to include the cost of maintaining 91 bridges and overpasses, 151 signal-controlled intersections. . .line painting. . .repairs, road widening. . . . The province did not adhere to a protocol agreement signed last September in which the province promised to discuss any serious financial issues with municipalities before taking action."

1. Does the government live within its budget? The answer is no.

2. Do they spend less than what they earn? Definitely not.

3. Are they saving for a rainy day? They can't, because of the growing debt and budget shortfalls.

4. Do they shop for the best value, especially when they're spending our money on roads? No.

5. Are they taking care of what we have so it will last? The answer again is no -- not in the case of Transportation and Highways. It's grossly underfunded, due to policy overruns in other areas. I think we're in a crisis situation.

6. Are they taking desperate steps? I think it's obvious that we have to have more money, or else we will be taking desperate steps.

7. Do we have good management skills? I think some of the people would like to do more, but if they were a household and not a business, we still wouldn't be solvent. We would be accused of poor management skills when we allow roads that go from $60,000 to $180,000 in costs -- I don't know whether it's poor management skills or whether it's lack of money, but I know that it's one of those areas we have to look at -- not to mention poor communications skills, with selective memory and a habit of breaking promises.

In my opinion, we have a strong case for change. The opposition is advocating that we restore an open tendering process. The taxpayers deserve to get the best price and value for their dollar. This would encourage the private sector and small business, and create a more positive climate in B.C. for building roads. The dollars saved could be used to increase the rehabilitation budget to a level that will save our roads and save future generations millions of dollars.

We continue to review and encourage the public-private partner ventures, including highway and bridge tolls, with full disclosure before construction so that the taxpayer doesn't have to pay twice. We lobby effectively for a large share of federal cost-sharing for our infrastructure. We encourage the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority to have more open disclosure of priority planning for major projects around the province.

In closing my remarks, I would like to say that as opposition critic for Transportation and Highways, along with my fellow caucus members, I see that the role as a watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers of the province is to ensure that the government policy is fair and responsible and that we get good value for our taxpayer dollars.

As we bring the critical issues forward, it's important to provide criticism and constructive offers of solution. The phone calls, letters and petitions which come to my attention are critical signs of how important our transportation and highways system is to the life of every single British Columbian. I brought one to forward to the minister in the House the other day from the people of the Queen Charlottes.

Yes, I want to assure the minister that I am concerned about highways and transportation. So is every other British Columbian. What we are not sure of is what the government feels about it in light of spending and management practices. Unfortunately, we cannot agree with this or with how the government regards their business and the financial management practice, as our philosophies are quite different. It would appear that some of our credit-rating agencies share the same opinion.

It's my hope that as we proceed with the estimates, we will be able to find some common ground and some areas that we can feel some confidence in, in terms of the present direction that this government is taking. There is no doubt in my mind that we are going to pay later for some of the short-term decisions that are being made today. The issue of our aging infrastructure is just one of the critical areas in this ministry which needs our attention and needs it soon.

Hon. L. Boone: Before we proceed, we are dealing with a TFA area today. I was negligent in not acknowledging the individuals who are with me. There's the deputy minister for the TFA and Highways, Blair Redlin. In the back row -- but not an unimportant back row -- we have Ian McLeod, director of communications and public affairs; Doug Hibbins, vice-president of project development and financing; and Frank Blasetti, VP of planning and evaluation. These are all individuals from the TFA.

Thank you for your comments. I won't go in depth about them here. I would just like to make one comment with 

[ Page 5203 ]

regards to the Island Highway and HCL. You mentioned an increase in price. The initial costs that you were talking about came from the auditor general. It was a plan that was done by the Socreds in 1988. We originally approved the project in 1993 at $1.2 billion. Some of the increases came about just because of the increases in those time periods: the increases in the value of land, improved safety, providing additional capacity and some economic development, and areas that just cost a lot more from 1988 to 1993. As you know, the Island has grown considerably since then, so we've seen a tremendous increase in the cost of property along those areas that we needed to purchase.

I know that we won't find any agreement with regards to HCL. I think last year we agreed to disagree on this. We'll probably agree to disagree as well on this thing. I believe that HCL is a success story. The latest review that was done by Roslyn Kunin indicates that the fair-wage policy has not cost government more money. What we have received in terms of benefits from having the fair wage, the local hire, are incredible additions that I think make this a really worthwhile project.

This morning we were at the opening of the Thetis Lake access. The member for that area mentioned that local hire was there. We've seen individuals, such as two young women as flag people, who have been hired from that community. We've seen additional employment for disabled people. We've seen incredible employment opportunities for aboriginals on the Island. As the member stated, local businesses have also profited tremendously, because the businesses are actually buying their products locally.

So rather than seeing our tax dollars going to companies that are bringing in employees from Alberta -- which happened in the past, and we'd see our tax dollars going over to support the Alberta economy -- we are keeping the dollars locally here on the Island, which had some tremendous economic problems. We're managing to keep those dollars here for the people and the workers in this community.

I make no apologies for doing that. I mean, this is something that we have done very deliberately. It's something that recognizes that the individuals who live on the Island have a right to be employed on those projects and that they also have a right to be employed at fair wages. With the local hiring provision that we have -- and I think it's in the nineties -- 90 percent come from local hire. We also have a tremendous safety record -- a safety record that is twice the record of any other normal construction project. So these are things that I think we've got a right to blow our horn about and have a right to be proud of, and as I said, we will agree to disagree.

You may think that we should be sending our tax dollars to Alberta. I don't, and I don't think the people on the Island think we should, and I don't think those individuals who have received training and valuable experience on the Island Highway believe that they should have seen those jobs go to Alberta. We're keeping the money here; we're keeping the employment here. We're doing training, and I'm really proud of what we're doing on that.

B. Barisoff: Not to get into an argument with the minister, as we did last year, I'm sure we are sending a lot of our tax dollars to Alberta in different ways, but not in the particular way that she's indicating.

As far as local hire goes, I think we'd all like to see local people hired. It's part of the Fair Wage Act that costs more money for all of the taxpayers of British Columbia. That was the problem.

Moving off that for a second, I'd just like to start in on some of the questions that I have for the minister. The original 1996-97 blue book budget was $630.1 million, less the Columbia Basin Trust of $2 million. Could the minister explain the Columbia Basin Trust and why it was taken out of the ministry's budget?

Hon. L. Boone: That was taken out of this budget last year, because it went with Corky, the Minister of Agriculture. I was thinking: how do we say this properly?

[7:45]

Hon. L. Boone: No, it's not. The Chair would call me.

The member for Nelson-Creston was the cabinet member that was responsible for the Columbia Basin Trust, and therefore the dollars went with him when he left this portfolio and went to the Ministry of Agriculture.

B. Barisoff: The balance of Highways. . . . It says here: "300 FTE, reductions of $11 million." That's going to ICBC?

Hon. L. Boone: I'll have to check on this. Are we dealing with the whole ministry now? I thought we were going to keep ourselves to the TFA budgets. If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate doing that, because we've sort of structured ourselves in that manner.

B. Barisoff: Okay. Just for some information so we can have it on the record, could the minister indicate who the members are who sit on the board of the Transportation Financing Authority and who has changed from last year?

Hon. L. Boone: Currently there's myself, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Employment and Investment and the member for New Westminster. Last year the member for Skeena was on for a short period of time, as was George Ford, the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs at that time. Those are the only two changes that have taken place.

B. Barisoff: Is there any particular qualification? Who chooses the people who go onto the board of directors? What qualification would they have, or what kind of criteria is looked at when they're appointed to that board?

Hon. L. Boone: They're taken on because of the portfolios they have. The Minister of Health is responsible for Transit. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, of course, relates to all of the various municipalities out there. The Minister of Employment and Investment is, of course, concerned with employment and investment opportunities and Ferries. There's myself. The member for New Westminster is on the B.C. Transit board.

B. Barisoff: More general information to have on the record is: how many FTEs are currently in place for the Transportation Financing Authority?

Hon. L. Boone: There are 38.

B. Barisoff: How does this compare with last year's. . . ?

Hon. L. Boone: It's up about five, and I think that's mainly due to some projects, such as the Lions Gate one.

[ Page 5204 ]

B. Barisoff: How many people do we have on contract with BCTFA?

Hon. L. Boone: Can we reverse this? I'm going to ask you: do you mean professional services that are given, people that are on long-term contracts or just on contracts that are given out on a regular basis? We have a variety of different types of contracts.

B. Barisoff: How many people do we contract to do services rather than being employees?

Hon. L. Boone: We don't have contracts in that form. We have contracts that are given on a professional service basis. If we require somebody to do a particular job, we hire them on that basis. But we do not have anybody that we contract work out to on a regular basis, as an employee type of thing.

B. Barisoff: Are these professional contracts given out because of a lack of expertise within BCTFA, or is it the workload? What's the basis behind hiring extra people?

Hon. L. Boone: It's because we have a specialized need for a particular thing or because we don't have a need to have somebody on staff all the time but we need somebody on a temporary basis to provide services. We certainly aren't going to hire those people full-time, so we contract their expertise on a temporary basis.

B. Barisoff: Has there been any cost-efficiency looked at? Rather than hiring some of these professional service contractors, wouldn't it be more efficient to have those kinds of experts on staff, considering the amount of money that we're spending in the BCTFA?

Hon. L. Boone: I think it would be very difficult to do. I'll go on record as saying that if it were possible -- and I've certainly discussed this with the deputy -- I would far prefer having a permanent employee to contracting out. But I do know that in this particular line of work there are many occasions when you need a particular skill and when you need somebody on a very short-term basis and you wouldn't need those skills. . . . It would cost us a lot more to have that person on staff on a full-time basis just to use their skills very temporarily. We also go project by project, so sometimes we need somebody in Vancouver, sometimes we need somebody on the Island and sometimes we need somebody in Kelowna. It's not something where we hire somebody all the time. I certainly understand what the member is getting at, and I concur. I would far sooner see a permanent employee if, in fact, we have the need for that kind of work. If that is there, I would certainly be pushing to hire somebody full-time rather than go on a contract basis.

B. Barisoff: This is something I would hope the minister would look at for efficiency. If we are spending a lot of money, rather than going in debt, looking at it piece by piece. . . . If the minister could give me an assurance that she will look at that to make sure that we're doing it in the most efficient manner.

Could you indicate to me how the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority gets the money that it gets? Where do the allocations come from?

Hon. L. Boone: Two cents a litre from gas tax and from the $1.50-a-day tax that goes on the rental of vehicles and some other revenue from partnership arrangements. For example, I mentioned the Mission interchange where we've got municipalities participating and where we've got corporations that may contribute some dollars, as well. But our revenue comes from those three areas I talked about: the 2-cents-a-litre gas tax mainly, the $1.50-a-day surcharge on rentals. I can give you the exact figures, actually. Two cents a litre is $106 million annually; $1.50 per day is $9 million annually; other revenue sources raise $3.5 million annually. So you can see that it's a small amount we get from other sources, which would be cost-shared through other innovative ways.

B. Barisoff: Have any other sources of funding changed, or will they change? Is this going to be the procedure for the coming year, or are you looking at any other kinds of changes, like another cent a litre?

Hon. L. Boone: In fact, the legislation. . . . We were due to get another cent a litre. There was supposed to be a regional gas tax surcharge for the Island Highway. However, the tax freeze we put in place put a stop to that, so we won't be getting that. We're looking at any kind of revenue we can in terms of if there's property to be sold or any of those opportunities. But right now there are no other taxes being considered. As I stated, we are seriously looking at tolls, and that would be some revenue coming in. But we've made no decisions on that. We'll have to see what comes about as a result of the Lions Gate Bridge review. Right now there's no opportunity for us to put in another tax because of the legislation.

B. Barisoff: The minister mentioned the Lions Gate Bridge and tolls. Are you indicating, then, that you would be looking to charge more than what the actual cost of the bridge would be, so that you could put added costs toward other things in BCTFA? Or are tolls usually made to pay for the original cost of the infrastructure?

Hon. L. Boone: Just to pay the cost of the infrastructure.

B. Barisoff: I can believe that there would be no additional revenue coming from things like the Lions Gate Bridge if it were tolled. The other one, I guess, would be the revenue that comes from the Coquihalla Highway, which, of course, is a concern to the people in the Okanagan -- whether that's now becoming a revenue-producing. . . . Or is that money going to BCTFA?

Hon. L. Boone: No, it goes into general revenue.

B. Barisoff: Moving on, do we have any litigation that's going on with BCTFA at the present time?

Hon. L. Boone: Just some contractor claims that occur from time to time.

B. Barisoff: Could you give me which projects and how much?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll get the list to you. Is that okay?

B. Barisoff: The reason I mention that is because, as I mentioned last year, I had an awful lot of complaints on the Vancouver Island Highway project about, I guess, probably some of the things that BCTFA would not see in litigation. 

[ Page 5205 ]

I was wondering whether it was working its way all the way up the ladder to where the ultimate responsibility lay with the BCTFA. Maybe another question along that same line is: why are we getting into these litigation problems?

Hon. L. Boone: It's hard to give you a definitive answer for everything, but it's generally issues between contractors and subcontractors.

B. Barisoff: Moving on to some of the projects, all the projects that were priority last year -- were they done?

Hon. L. Boone: As you know -- and I mentioned in my initial remarks -- there was a capital freeze, so all of the projects that were started were started and some of them were completed and some of them are being completed. It was as a result of the capital review that we went through that the capital budget was cut back in order to reduce the debt of the province. So we have determined -- and the Premier has stated -- that all of the projects will eventually be done but not necessarily in the same time frame that was mentioned. Some are being delayed; others are proceeding in the same time frame that was initially announced.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister give me the projects that were dropped?

[8:00]

B. Barisoff: As long as I get a copy of it.

Hon. L. Boone: Okay. We'll provide you with a copy of this paper, which will save us all a little bit of time, then. That indicates the time frame for the delayed projects and shows you that they are all proceeding but just, as I said, in a different time frame.

B. Barisoff: This question will probably lead right into where you have to read some of them. What is the cost that can be attributed to -- almost like wasted money -- projects started and stopped, or whatever? Have we got any estimate of what kind of funds we've lost in startup costs and where you're going?

Hon. L. Boone: There were no projects that were started and stopped. Any project that was already started continued. The only projects that were delayed and frozen were ones for which no tender had been given and which hadn't actually started at all. If there had been a tender, if the project had been tendered and it had been accepted, then that project continued on and was, in fact, outside the freeze last year.

B. Barisoff: I think my concern probably lies in the fact that, when these projects start up again, the planning money that has gone into them. . . . I probably mentioned it last year, and Mr. Hibbins behind you would know full well what takes place a lot of times in school projects, where they start a project that stops, then we go through the same planning process again. Does this same exercise take place in BCTFA?

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: It was only six months, so if the plans were done, they're still valid and we'll continue on those. There were some where the planning just wasn't done, so we haven't even done the planning on them. Really, it didn't cost us anything other than a delay in time and some inconvenience for people who wanted those projects happening faster. But it didn't cost the TFA any money for the freeze.

B. Barisoff: Yes, that was my concern. I'm glad to hear the minister indicate that. I would hate to see that we've put a lot of money out in planning and then all of a sudden we decide that we're not doing it or whatever else, so that what we're doing is wasting money that could be used on the roads.

Can you give me an update on the Okanagan Valley system and where we're at with what's taking place there?

Hon. L. Boone: Phase A, which was the first phase -- amazing -- focused on identifying the problems and finding out what the problems were there. The next phase is more detailed analysis of specific issues, and options will be undertaken. We should be announcing that within the next couple of weeks and working with the Central Okanagan regional district on how we should proceed with the next phase of the project.

B. Barisoff: The minister did indicate last year that it should be done by the spring, and I would hope that it is done; we're well into summer. Could you give me the budget -- how much of the budget was spent on that process and what public input was put into it?

Hon. L. Boone: We have finished phase A; that was phase A that I was talking about. We have finished phase A, which was identifying the problems and working to do that. That cost $800,000.

B. Barisoff: What are the projected costs of the next phase that will take place, and what will be in the next phase?

Hon. L. Boone: The next phase is $600,000, focusing on the requirements of the Central Okanagan.

B. Barisoff: When I look at that -- at the $800,000 and $600,000 -- and still there's nothing done with the infrastructure system in the Okanagan, it makes me wonder whether we're spending a lot of time or spending too much money on the planning stages. What are we doing that's costing $800,000? And from there we've actually moved nowhere into something now that's costing $600,000. I'd just like to know the time frame of how many years down the road we are going to be before we see something concrete actually happen.

Hon. L. Boone: I guess sometimes it seems like you're not doing anything, but in fact you have to identify what you want to do first. Obviously you can't just go in and do some things without knowing what they are, where you're going to build these roads, etc.

We have property acquisition and final design for future construction of the Glenrosa interchange on Highway 97. Westbank is part of the '97-98 capital and rehab program. We are planning the four-laning north of Kelowna, and we're starting the planning on the four-laning of the bridge. So we are starting to work on these things. We'll be working with the North Okanagan, starting next year, to plan for some of their infrastructure problems, too.

But clearly we have to understand where the problems are, how we need to address them and get community sup-

[ Page 5206 ]

port for those, what they see as their priorities, before we start anything. You know, I sometimes share your frustration, because I think it seems like we're spending a lot of time planning things and dealing with things. But if you don't spend those dollars planning, then you can spend a lot of dollars on useless projects too, because it's not and in fact doesn't address the actual problems there.

B. Barisoff: I just find it hard to believe that we've spent $1.4 million and we really haven't accomplished. . . . I haven't seen a report. There doesn't seem to be a report out that everybody's been able to look at to see what's actually going to take place. So the frustration level that I have. . . .

If you happen to live in the Okanagan and you see what takes place there, the congestion is growing and growing. It's nothing compared to the metro area of Vancouver, but it is still a great concern. I just think that somehow, somewhere down the line, $1.4 million is a lot of money.

My concern with that is that I'm wondering whether. . . . Is this in-house money? Or how is this money. . . ? This $800,000 and the $600,000 -- are these professional services that we've done? Where has this money gone to? Where is it? Could we have a breakdown of what's taken place?

Hon. L. Boone: A combination of in-house and professional services.

B. Barisoff: The in-house, now, is that charged against some particular budget? Is this $800,000 or $600,000 just a cost that we attribute to BCTFA? Or is it actual money expended out from the budget?

Hon. L. Boone: Actual expenditures that are charged.

B. Barisoff: I guess that if it's actual expenditures, that's where my concern comes in. When we look back at a few questions I asked earlier about professional services. . . . I guess the question that arises is on the fact that we spent $1.4 million. Probably, $1.4 million would hire a few pretty good staff people to be on a staff that would be working with some of these things. I'm just wondering where the economics are when we've spent this and still haven't gone anywhere with it, and whether the minister could actually find out where these services have gone to, so I could have a breakdown of where the $800,000 and the $600,000 went to.

Hon. L. Boone: We've only spent $800,000. The $600,000 is budgeted for next year, so we haven't spent that yet. So it's the $800,000. We'll get a breakdown for you. We'll get that to you not now but afterwards -- okay?

B. Barisoff: I thank you for that.

I guess the member for Okanagan-Penticton isn't here. He had hoped to be here while we were doing some of this Okanagan Valley transportation system. I'm sure that as the days go on when we're doing our estimates, we'll have people dropping in and asking questions about their particular ridings.

But while I'm here, one that I know of in particular is the section between Summerland and Peachland, which is probably twofold. It's probably one of the more dangerous sections of road there. I'm just wondering whether that's part of the last go-round with the Transportation Authority, and what they've figured out.

Hon. L. Boone: It was an area that was identified. But we're not advancing the planning too far right now, because we simply don't have the dollars right now to do that. As you so wisely pointed out, we don't want to plan now and then have those plans be invalid later on down the line, when we actually have the money to do it.

B. Barisoff: I don't like it when the minister gets ahead of me on one of those things, where she gets a little bit of a jump and. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: It's scary.

B. Barisoff: It truly is. But I just see that the $600,000 strikes me as being an awful lot of money, or the $1.4 million. We probably should have the whole corridor, from one end of the Okanagan to the other, completely planned out with those kinds of dollars. I would hope that we would spend our dollars wisely when we're doing it.

Moving on to the south coast transportation plan, I'd just like to know if there's any decision or anything that's happening on the Port Mann Bridge.

Hon. L. Boone: Right now we're doing an engineering assessment to see if there's a way we can -- I'll use "economically," as "economically" sounds better -- economically get another lane onto the bridge. But that is as far as we're going with regard to the Port Mann.

B. Barisoff: What's the planning going to cost for this? Or is this in-house planning?

[8:15]

B. Barisoff: I know that the minister stated at a board of trade breakfast awhile back -- or it might have been somewhere else that I heard it -- that we spent $2 million maintaining the Lions Gate Bridge. What's the parallel figure that we would be looking at for maintenance on the Port Mann Bridge?

Hon. L. Boone: That's not within the TFA; that's Highways. But it's nowhere near. The maintenance of the Lions Gate has leapt incredibly. We were at $1 million. I think we've gone from $2 million to $3 million, just because of the infrastructure problems around the cracks that are created and making sure that it is safe. We don't have those problems on the Port Mann, so it wouldn't be anywhere near that. But those budgets are within the Transportation and Highways budget.

B. Barisoff: What I'll do is that when it comes up to that, I'll ask the same question again just to find out what kind of costs there are with the Port Mann. I know, from what I understand and from just being on the other side and trying to cross it, that it's probably an area that's one of the major congestions in the lower mainland.

I would like to know if there's a time line that the people of that area could be looking at for some kind of improvement, whether it's a third lane or whatever it might be. Is there any kind of time line whatsoever?

[ Page 5207 ]

Hon. L. Boone: The actual congestion occurs at the Cape Horn interchange. I've had people talk to me about that over and over again. We're doing some planning on that and on connecting up to the HOV network. The bridge itself. . . . Increasing the size and capacity for the bridge is not planned for at this particular time, other than what I said -- looking at the study that we have. But we are looking at some interchange improvements at the Cape Horn interchange.

B. Barisoff: I imagine that as we go on we can move right down the list until we get to the 200th Street overpass. But we're really going to keep that low-key.

Another member wants to ask a few questions related to his particular riding.

R. Masi: I don't suppose it comes as any surprise that the topic is the Nordel completion. I'd just like to review the situation, however, with Nordel Way. The citizens of Delta consider this an integral part of the Highway 91 system. Unfortunately, it's a roadway that's been constructed in phases, first from Highway 91 to 112th Street, and then the second phase, from 112th Street to 116th Street, which was completed in 1990. It's very unfortunate that the government previous to the government of 1991 didn't continue on at that time, but I understand there were disagreements between the city of Surrey and the municipality of Delta.

However, just to go over the situation further, the present traffic, as you know, crosses a major bridge, the Alex Fraser Bridge, onto a major highway, Highway 91. It exits onto an interchange -- which, I understand, will have a doubling of capacity in the near future -- then up Nordel Way, which is a four-lane highway, to 116th Street, then right into a private driveway located on 116th. We have a road that goes from a freeway to a driveway.

One of the factors that I think we have to take into consideration when we're discussing this situation is the population of North Delta and Surrey, which is now in the neighbourhood of 350,000. We're looking at a highly populated area. That's not counting, of course, the traffic flow from Langley and the rest of the Fraser Valley. The last count, which I'm sure is low now -- it's probably out of date -- was approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. The traffic now disperses into local neighbourhoods along 112th Street and 116th Street. It's adjacent to many schools, parks and generally goes throughout the neighbourhood.

We now have an agreement between the city of Surrey and the municipality of Delta on the actual route of the roadway. This, of course, is a major step forward. I think that before, there was a blockage in terms of the two municipalities. We also have an agreement that both the city of Surrey and the municipality of Delta would cost-share with the provincial government, as no doubt the minister is aware. I think that at this time it would probably need a negotiated initiative from the ministry to meet the differences of opinion on who pays what percentage -- the province and the city -- which is always the case. However, there probably should be room for negotiation at that point, as it is a number one priority for the Delta council.

This is something that I suppose is just a burning issue in the North Delta area. I constantly get reminders, calls, from the local citizenry. Of course, we've had a major event there in terms of your action, the minister's action, in holding up the truck traffic on 72nd Avenue, which was a necessary thing because of the school situation there.

I would also like to remind the minister that we did have a commitment from the former Minister of Highways that this was an essential piece of work and that it would be done. At this point, I guess we're here now talking about the consequences of no action. These are unfortunate comments that we have to make in terms of this.

The addition of the double-road interchange now will, of course, result in more traffic moving up Nordel Way because of the convenience of exiting off the bridge. It will congest on Nordel hill, and it will further the congestion in the adjoining neighbourhoods. Again, we're talking about schools, parks and general residences. We are increasing the chances. . . . I believe this is a serious situation. If you could see it at 5:30 in the evening, you would see the traffic moving all through the neighbourhoods, going by schools and going into streets that really don't deserve heavy traffic flow. What we're dealing with here, first of all, is civic unrest. It's becoming more and more apparent, and I think we will ultimately see civic action on this.

I just feel that for the cost in dollars and the so-called bang for the buck, it's a good deal. I know money is tight; I'm not unaware of the situation. It's not like there's a pot of money out there and you can just pull it out anytime you want. But I do also know that the ministry has a budget -- it's not zero. It's a question of priorities. I realize that you have to be tough on priorities and you have to order them. That's what priorities are all about. But I think we're now getting to the point where we have a serious situation developing. I would appreciate consideration of this matter, and I know that the people of North Delta would appreciate consideration of this matter.

Hon. L. Boone: I appreciate your concerns. As I stated at the beginning, each and every one of us in this building here has projects within our own communities that we feel are absolutely essential in terms of relieving congestion, making it safer -- all of those different things -- sometimes just making the condition of the roads better. Unfortunately, we do have some budget constraints.

In order to reduce the debt. . . . As members opposite certainly recognize, that's an important thing to do. Our budget was reduced so that we could contribute to a reduction of the debt. I'm not happy that we had to do that. I would far sooner have the money and be able to say: "Yes, we're going to proceed with that." I've met with your council and explained the situation to your mayor. She wasn't any happier than I am or you are with the situation we've got. If you can find one of your members that would say they don't need a project that we've scheduled for their ridings, then by all means we would continue with this one here, but the reality is that it's $12 million to $15 million. That's a lot of money, and at this particular time, we do not have those kinds of dollars available.

As I said earlier, all of the projects that were formally announced will be proceeding, just not necessarily in the same time frame that we had hoped. This is not something that I am happy about, but it is something that I have to live with. If suddenly our financial situation turns around and we have dollars coming in and the budget increases, etc., then we'll look at all of these projects and try to increase many of them. But we are in a very tight situation, and unfortunately, that means that Nordel Way can't be proceeded with at this particular time.

R. Masi: I appreciate your comments. I would just like to reinforce, though, that we're not talking about a local project; we're talking about a major artery through the Fraser Valley that is very heavily used. While it is in Delta and in Surrey, it is 

[ Page 5208 ]

part of the major connecting routes. I realize that you are talking about south perimeter roads and $650 million projects and things like that, but for a small project with such a big impact on traffic, I think it would be wise to review it.

B. Barisoff: Just moving on, for the record, could the minister explain to me what the priority corridor program is all about?

Hon. L. Boone: The priority corridor program provides major service improvements, safety capacity and level of service to primary highways which are deficient and experiencing pressures. The four priority corridors identified in the transportation strategy are: Vancouver Island Highway; Trans-Canada Highway, Kamloops to the Alberta border; Okanagan highway, Highway 97; and the lower mainland east-west connection south of the Fraser River.

[8:30]

Hon. L. Boone: No, no new corridors.

B. Barisoff: Moving on to the Alex Fraser Bridge and the interchange, can I get what the construction status is and where we're at with that?

Hon. L. Boone: Completion and opening in the fall of this year.

B. Barisoff: On Highway 1: the status of the six-laning and the completion date?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: Going to tender this month; completion, October '98.

B. Barisoff: Cost?

Hon. L. Boone: A lot: $65 million. I told you -- a lot.

B. Barisoff: So the budget would be. . . . Is it conceivable to guess at this point in time that it will be on target and on budget?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Barisoff: What was the original projection of that project?

Hon. L. Boone: It was $90 million, and we've been cutting it back to get within. . . . It's a much more cost-efficient method.

B. Barisoff: What have we had to cut from that? It was originally $90 million and we're down to $65 million. Can you indicate what's being cut out of the project to bring it down to that?

Hon. L. Boone: Originally, it was announced at $53 million. The projections were for $90 million, but we are budgeting $63 million because we've added some things to it. The Willingdon weave has nothing to do with cloth but with the underground planning that we are putting in, in terms of trying to get our traffic control plans in place, so that we can synchronize some of our traffic patterns. We put in a computer underground there. So those things have added to the cost. But we figured it was best to put it in now rather than tearing it up and putting it in later on, once we want to do these things. That increased the cost of the project up to $63 million. When we originally announced it, the projected cost was $90 million. So we've managed to bring it in, I figure, pretty well.

B. Barisoff: I'm sure that we must have. From $90 million to $63 million, I'm sure we've scaled something out of there that unbeknownst to the minister. . . . You don't drop $30 million and not eliminate something that was probably originally in the project.

Not being somebody from Vancouver, could the minister indicate the exact distance and where it starts and where it ends?

Hon. L. Boone: It's from Grandview to Cape Horn, and it adds about 16 kilometres.

B. Barisoff: Are there any plans to alleviate the congestion problems of Highway 1 and Highway 99 south of the Fraser?

Hon. L. Boone: Highway 99 has actually gained a lot, because of the work we've done getting rid of the bottleneck at the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge. More traffic is now going through there. So that has relieved some of the congestion on the 99.

B. Barisoff: And Highway 1?

Hon. L. Boone: We have no specific plans for that right now.

B. Barisoff: Last year the minister suggested that there was an overpass planned for Highway 99 at 152nd. Could you give me the current status of that?

Hon. L. Boone: We're still working with the municipality on that.

B. Barisoff: Can you give me more of an update of what. . . ? You're working with the municipality, but I'd like to know how far along we are? What's happening? It was a project that was on the books last year. I need more than just "working with the municipality."

Hon. L. Boone: This is a touchy. . . . We're trying to figure out how much we can say without breaking some confidence, because things are due to go to Treasury Board. We're fairly close to an agreement on most aspects of this. We're working on a Treasury Board submission, so we can't release something until such time as it's gone through Treasury Board and got approval there.

B. Barisoff: I certainly wouldn't want the minister to break her oath of secrecy with Treasury Board. That's the last thing we'd want. But I imagine if you've been discussing this with any municipal council, if they're like most municipal councils around the province, I'm sure there's not a lot of 

[ Page 5209 ]

secrecy that would be taking place. I'm sure that if it was a project that was going in a particular riding, everybody would know about it.

Moving on to. . . . I know the minister has dealt with this one. We're not going through the six-hour escapade we had promised, because she did accommodate myself and the member for Langley. Just an update on the 200th Street overpass.

Hon. L. Boone: We are doing the planning. As your member probably advised you, the meeting we had with the municipality was very optimistic. We suggested to them that they may want to contribute some dollars towards the 200th Street overpass. As they have said, they were going to do the 208th, because they were worried about the 200th Street overpass not proceeding. So they were very receptive to our suggestion that they contribute some dollars towards the 200th to make sure that we could proceed perhaps in a faster time frame than we would have been able to do. We're currently working with them to see if we can come to an agreement as to the dollars that they would contribute towards that project. So we're still proceeding with the planning of 200th and hope to proceed with the building of it next year with some financial assistance from the municipality.

B. Barisoff: Considering what I watch on the news about the number of people that were showing up at the Langley council meetings, would it be fair to say that the 200th Street overpass would be going ahead within the next six months to a year and the 208th would be left in abeyance so that the 200th could be done?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, I can't comment on the 208th; that's a municipal decision. We will be proceeding with the planning and the design stage this year, and we will proceed with construction next year on the 208th -- excuse me, the 200th.

B. Barisoff: Lucky you corrected that. You would have had the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove roaring in here and probably about 500 other citizens in your office sometime tomorrow.

Carrying on a little bit, the Maple Ridge bridge that was planned. . . . I noticed in the June 27 Vancouver Sun that there was a bridge planned for there.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. That article was. . ."unfortunate" is the word to use, I think. It was assuming something that is not happening. We are not even in the planning stages for that right now.

B. Barisoff: When you look at "Highways Ministry Plans Study to Evaluate Locations for River Crossing in Maple Ridge," that sure must have got them all excited that something was happening there.

Hon. L. Boone: Us too.

B. Barisoff: Yes. Just while I'm going through here, I would be remiss not to also ask some questions about my own riding. I'm sure I mentioned before that one of them would be on Highway 97. There's a bridge there that I'm sure is going to fall in the river one of these days. I mentioned it in the last estimates. It's called the McAlpine Bridge. I am just wondering whether there is any scheduled update for that bridge, because I would hate to think that I would be standing in the House one day telling the minister that I told her so -- that this catastrophe was going to happen.

Hon. L. Boone: We don't have anything here on the McAlpine Bridge, so it doesn't look like it's on our agenda right now, but we will certainly check into that and let you know what the state of that bridge is. Perhaps Highways has a better idea.

On bridges, I was in Barkerville one day, and a guy came up to me and said: "When are you going to replace that bridge?" I said: "Which bridge?" He said: "The wooden one." I said: "Tomorrow." So everybody wants a bridge replaced, and as you very aptly put it, we do have some bridges that really do require replacement.

Our difficulty as a ministry, whether it be as the Transportation Financing Authority or as the Ministry of Highways, is to spread our dollars over the next few years and try to find ways to finance those things. Clearly we will have to look at some alternative means of financing a lot of different areas.

B. Barisoff: I just refer back to the comments the minister made about the priority corridor program, and the Okanagan being one of them. That bridge happens to be on Highway 97, which is in that priority corridor.

Carrying on with a few other things that happen to be in my riding, last year I mentioned McIntyre Bluff, which is on the corridor also and is probably one of the more dangerous corners in the province. I think I mentioned to the minister last year my years as a volunteer fireman and taking people off that corner in states that were probably unacceptable. Knowing the direction that she's taking in highways and safety in this province, I would suspect that there's another situation where fixing up that particular corner probably would have paid for itself ten or 15 times over just in the insurance costs that ICBC would be putting out. Considering that ICBC and the motor vehicle branch and the Ministry of Highways are tied so closely together, that's a particular spot that I think the minister should look at.

Hon. L. Boone: You brought up a good point there. If somebody can take note of this, we will bring this to the attention of ICBC, because they do cost-share, as you know, a number of different improvements to highways. They've found that in some areas they've got a 4-to-1 return on their dollars because of the reduction of accidents. So if this is a high-accident area that you believe ICBC may be interested in trying to cost-share with the ministry, then we would be more than happy to look into it. Again, if we can lever money that way, then we save dollars all around. That would probably be through the Highways budget, not through the TFA, but if it saves lives and reduces accidents, then ICBC is interested in it. They know that it's a cost-effective way to put out money.

[8:45]

The Barnet-Hastings express lane. I think that's up and running. Could you just give me an update on that?

Hon. L. Boone: That was opened last September. It's still operating, and people are travelling on it. Usage is exceeding expectations. As you know, when we originally opened that, 

[ Page 5210 ]

we reduced the numbers from three to two for the HOV area, with a clear understanding that at some point in time we would probably increase it to a capacity of three to alleviate the pressures there again. So once it looks like it's getting full, then we will increase the capacity numbers on that HOV lane.

B. Barisoff: Is there a final report that's been put out on that? I have here that there was supposed to be a report put out in December on basically an experiment on these HOVs. Is there something that's been put out that I could get a copy of?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll get a copy of that report to you.

B. Barisoff: I noted by going through press releases and whatever else that it's still dominated by a lot of single-passenger vehicles. Is that improving, or do we know what's happening with that?

Hon. L. Boone: Approximately 670 vehicles with two or more occupants use the HOV lanes in the mornings and afternoons, which are the peak periods. That's when they are HOV lanes. Car-pool travelling from Port Moody to East Vancouver now saves almost 15 minutes compared to before the facility opened. So it is working; it is successful. As I said, at some point in the future we expect that we will be increasing the capacity from two to three.

B. Barisoff: HOV lanes were an experiment to start with. Are we still debating this, or is it something that we've concluded is a good idea? Are we advancing the whole idea of more HOV lanes in the metro area of Vancouver?

Hon. L. Boone: As you know, we are planning other HOV lanes on Highway 1, so we're not debating it. We believe that they are successful, and the more people that we can get into car pools or into a car pool-types of situations. . . . We believe it's to our advantage. It relieves congestion, which is a good idea, because it keeps more cars off the roads, and it stops the pollution from going up the valley. It's not something that we're debating right now.

B. Barisoff: The major highway performance sustaining program. What kind of assessment is the BCTFA doing in identifying areas throughout the province that need to be realigned? Or have we got particular staff that works on that? What projects have we looked at in the last year or so?

Hon. L. Boone: The major highway performance sustaining program sustains service levels on major highways throughout the remainder of the province. We are doing ongoing assessments. The initiatives include passing and truck-climbing lanes, intersection improvements, removal of hazardous features through realignment and capacity improvements through urban sections.

Right now they're concentrating on north of Cache Creek, around Lac la Hache. That was part of the announcement that just went in yesterday, which was for the passing lanes -- the federal-provincial infrastructure. That's being cost-shared with the federal government, concentrating on Highway 97 -- a good highway, Highway 97; you're at one end of it and I'm in the middle -- and Highway 11.

Clearly there are numerous areas throughout the province that could require passing lanes, and I think they're an excellent way to spend dollars. That alleviates pressures, and I think it creates a good safety feature, as well. It stops the frustrations of people who are stuck behind campers or slow-moving vehicles and who then do something foolish because they're anxious to get on their way. So those are dollars well spent. We're doing what we can within the budget we've got.

B. Barisoff: I'd be remiss not to mention Highway 3A, in particular, between Midway and Greenwood. I'm wondering whether there's been any realignment work done on that particular stretch of road.

Hon. L. Boone: We're not actually doing anything on 3A right now.

B. Barisoff: I do have some concern with that, hon. minister, not only because it runs through my riding but because of the fact that it's the southern Trans-Canada and there is a lot of traffic that goes through there. I'm just wondering whether the BCTFA. . . . Is there a list put out periodically, at least for MLAs, so we could see which areas of the province are being looked at and for what reasons? We can contribute our political part of it or whatever it might be.

I get calls from all over the province, being the critic for this particular area, and I'm just wondering whether. . . . It would be a lot easier for me, rather than always calling the minister to find out what's happening, if there were a list put out that has the projects that were looked at. We all know that it's tight budgets. Dollars and cents dictate what's going to take place. But at least if they knew that those things were taking place, it would be some sense of relief.

Hon. L. Boone: It's kind of hard to provide you with a list of things that we're not going to do. Things are considered. They're brought to the TFA board. They're discussed at the board, and they're approved or rejected or what have you. So it would be very difficult to actually provide you in advance with a list of things that the board hasn't even seen yet. We'd be happy to work with you and tell you what stage a particular project is at. If you have a list you want to forward to us, then we could. . . . Maybe that's the way we could do it. If you had a list of projects and could provide it to us on a regular basis, then we can tell you what stage they're at -- if they are being considered or if they have been considered by the board.

B. Barisoff: I certainly could provide the minister with a list, but I'm sure at next year's estimates the minister would stand up and say: "I've spent $5 million instead of $3 million." So rather than doing that. . . .

Another concern I have is: how are these projects prioritized? Given the fact that the motor vehicle branch and ICBC and the minister are so tightly knit together, are they prioritized based on accidents, or are they prioritized based on political influence, or are they prioritized based on who knows what that somebody drops out of the air for whatever reason? I'm just concerned about where the priorities are. Is there a priority list that says that next year Highway 3A or the one into the Cariboo or into McIntyre or into Loughborough or wherever it might be would be the project? If people know that these kinds of things are happening in the future, they would probably have some satisfaction.

Hon. L. Boone: I could read you this, and then you would be as far ahead as I am -- not.

I'll tell you one thing. It's not done according to political influence, because we've allocated $70 million for the Lions 

[ Page 5211 ]

Gate Bridge and no money for the bridges in my town. We've allocated dollars and planning money for the Okanagan area. Again, my colleague in Prince George North this year is getting some brush cut, so it has nothing to do with political influence. It has everything to do with the actual need, the requirement of safety and the assessment that is done by the TFA staff and the ministry personnel who are working out there.

I want to make it clear that the connection between the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and ICBC has only to do with the motor vehicle end of it. There is no connection in terms of ICBC dealing with the ministry on highway projects, other than, as I stated, whether we can cost-share and things like that. Our connection is strictly through the motor vehicle end of it. The staff have been transferred over to ICBC, and we've retained some of the regulatory and the policy ends of those areas, but not in terms of ICBC influencing what takes place in Transportation and Highways -- unless it has to do with us cost-sharing a particular project, which we may approach someone on and say, "This is a good idea," or they may approach us on.

B. Barisoff: That surprises me. The member for Peace River North thought it was his political influence that got some of the roads fixed up there. I just thought I would wake him up; he's not paying attention down there.

R. Neufeld: No, it's got nothing to do with politics.

B. Barisoff: Well, I know that. From spending a little bit of time up there, I know that the roads are in a desperate state.

Could the minister indicate how many realignment projects were completed in the past year?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll get that list to you.

B. Barisoff: How many are planned for this year, and could you give me a few examples -- you gave me one example -- throughout the province that might indicate what's taking place?

[9:00]

You were interested in passing lanes, as well: Hillcrest Way, Dubois Road, York and Yardley, Dahl Road, Pouce Coupe weigh scale -- it must have been a mistake, I think, that one -- and Rat Portage Hill. Those are the ones that we have listed.

B. Barisoff: Could you give me a budget allocation of what's gone into these areas?

Hon. L. Boone: For expediency's sake, can we just forward you a copy of the page we have here with all the lists on it, if that's okay with the member?

B. Barisoff: You certainly can, hon. minister, and a lot of times I would appreciate it if I could ask for those things or actually just get them sent to whoever the critic might be for Transportation and Highways. If they could get copies of some of these things, it would save a lot of time -- just so we know that some of these things are taking place and where they're taking place. It's more for the benefit of when you get calls from these areas -- Pouce Coupe or wherever it might be throughout the province. It's good to have them on hand to say, "Listen, this is happening there," or wherever else.

Moving on from that, did you give me a budget allocation of that, or are you going to send that with. . . ?

Hon. L. Boone: It's $15 million.

B. Barisoff: Fifteen million dollars doesn't do a lot of passing lanes in today's day and age. I'm amazed that the minister was able to read that many names off. They must be short of passing lanes.

Moving on to the economic development program and projects that have been applied for by the private sector, last year the hon. minister indicated to me that there had been some under development. Have these been finalized at all?

Hon. L. Boone: Projects underway that are concluded: the 200th Street-88th Avenue interchange, which, as I say is cost-shared with the municipality there; the South Surrey interchange, a cost-shared interchange at Highway 99 and 32nd Avenue that addresses traffic safety concerns; the Sea Island connector, upgrading the crossing over Morey Channel to Sea Island, the location of the Vancouver International Airport; the Lions Gate Bridge, and as you know, we're looking at a public-private partnership there; the Mission development that I mentioned before that was cost-shared three ways; Sierra-Yoyo-Desan road -- I challenge you, member, to say that fast, three times -- financing to upgrade service with payback through beneficiary contributions from resource users; Greenville to Kincolith road, cost-sharing 29 kilometres from Greenville, the current termination of the Nisga'a highway, to Kincolith; and Furry Creek access improvements.

B. Barisoff: Somewhere in this maze here I had some information on that Kincolith. . . . It was supposed to be quite an expensive piece of road. I was just wondering -- before I get to it and while you've mentioned it -- what the cost of that is. I know I have written it down as being a very expensive piece of road. What's happening with it?

Hon. L. Boone: It is $30 million -- $10 million already received from the federal government and then contributions in kind from the aboriginal group.

B. Barisoff: When the minister mentions contributions in kind, could she explain exactly what that means to the government?

Hon. L. Boone: We're still negotiating with them on some of those areas, but it might be on some things such as the right-of-way.

B. Barisoff: So there'd be an extra $20 million that the BCTFA would be putting out to build that, if it's $30 million? If we're looking at in-kind, it sounds to me like there's no extra funding coming forward.

Hon. L. Boone: We're hoping to get $5 million from the Nisga'a, so we're looking at maybe $15 million from us.

B. Barisoff: Moving on, in April we heard about a private proposal to build a bridge spanning Saanich Inlet. I think it's a toll bridge. Is the government considering this project at all?

[ Page 5212 ]

Hon. L. Boone: No.

B. Barisoff: That seems like a pretty decisive decision on what's happening there.

Moving on to some of the grant programs, I know the minister made some big announcements on some of the cycling programs. Maybe she could just elaborate on exactly what has taken place with this with cost-sharing with the federal government?

Hon. L. Boone: There are 41 cycling projects in total: 24 in the lower mainland, nine on the Island and about seven everywhere else. Obviously the cycling network program is very popular in the urban areas. You don't find that the rural areas have the need for a separate cycling lane. But they are certainly very popular. As I said earlier, they reduce the amount of congestion. You can get people on bikes rather than driving their vehicles. It prevents pollution in the air. So I think a lot of the urban municipalities are seeing this as an alternative form of transportation and are really grabbing hold of these.

B. Barisoff: As much as it seems like a nice concept to do that, driving in the traffic in Vancouver and the lower mainland, you probably almost have to have a fence between the bicycle lane and the traffic. You'd be putting your life in your hands if you thought you were going to drive safely on bicycle paths along the side of any of the highways in the lower mainland. Maybe the minister could elaborate on exactly what's taking place with some of these.

Hon. L. Boone: I've just been informed that 5 percent of the inbound traffic going into Vancouver and Victoria are cyclists. So people are utilizing this. They are recognizing that in some cases it's a faster way to travel. The president of ICBC actually cycles to work every day.

B. Penner: But not the former chair of B.C. Transit.

B. Barisoff: Oh, you spoiled my question.

Hon. L. Boone: I can't comment on B.C. Transit.

So it is popular, and I think it's going to get even more popular as people recognize that there are alternative forms of transportation to the vehicle.

B. Barisoff: The member next to me spoiled my question, because I was just going to indicate that I doubt that the chairman of B.C. Transit was riding his bike to work. Could I ask the minister where the 5 percent figure came from that they're using -- from him?

Hon. L. Boone: They're traffic counts that come from places like the GVRD. I know that the Minister of Finance was advising me that one of the overpasses, the Town and Country overpass, is used on a daily basis by 5,000 people -- not all of them are on bikes; some of them are on foot. But that's a tremendous number of people going over that area.

Again, it's a very small amount of money, $2 million, that we've contributed this year. And $2 million comes from the municipalities, and $2 million came from the federal government. So that's a total of $6 million this year. You know, we are managing to get people onto an alternative form of transportation other than vehicles.

B. Barisoff: The contribution that was made by the federal government: was this a one-time contribution to this?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. It's part of the federal-provincial infrastructure program that was announced this year.

B. Barisoff: Any idea why this year was chosen to be the year we decided that bicycles were going to be the thing to do?

Hon. L. Boone: The previous infrastructure program concentrated on sewage and water and various things like that. This year we made a decision that we needed to focus on some of the infrastructure related to roads. So the cycling network was one of the areas that we thought we could expand. As I say, we get very good value for that very small amount of money. It's very well received.

The municipalities contribute as well. So we look to areas where the municipalities. . . . You have to find an area where the municipalities are interested in contributing. They're obviously not interested in contributing to our highways, but they're certainly interested in contributing to pathways that make life in their communities better for their people.

B. Barisoff: If this money isn't spent, will it be carried forward from years past? I don't know if you can answer for the federal government. You can probably answer for the provincial government, though.

Hon. L. Boone: We have our program in place. We started in 1995, so the $2 million has been in each of those budgets. The money from the federal government will end, and everything has to be completed by March 31. So there will be no carryover of dollars there. The reality is that we had requests far exceeding the number of dollars that we have, so our money has all been allocated.

B. Barisoff: I have to get back to the same old question: who chose which projects would be done?

[9:15]

B. Barisoff: Last year I asked you a question about the cycling statistics, and you indicated that 5 percent use cycling as a form of transportation. You said it would take a year before you would have some concrete statistics. Are these the concrete statistics that you're bringing forward now?

Hon. L. Boone: Those statistics are taken from the GVRD counts from '92-93, so they could be out of date, and obviously. . . . I think there are probably more people cycling right now. We will check and see if they've got more up-to-date figures, but those were from the counts that came from the GVRD.

[ Page 5213 ]

B. Barisoff: You indicated that there were applications by municipalities throughout the province. Can you indicate to me how many applications were received and how many didn't meet the criteria and for what reasons?

Hon. L. Boone: There were 72 applications from 32 municipalities, and we approved 41 of them. Some were rejected. I remember looking through the ones that were rejected, and some were rejected outright because of the costs -- some of them were very large in their values. As I said, we tried to distribute them as fairly as we could.

B. Barisoff: It has just been brought to my attention that with this news release that was put out, when you look at the two pages, one says the lower mainland, and we have Campbell River indicated on there for almost $1.6 million. I see the member from Campbell River. I was just wondering how he got onto that list there for the lower mainland.

Hon. L. Boone: No, Campbell River got a bike path for $31,000. In the announcement, you may have indications of projects other than the bicycling paths.

B. Barisoff: I think it was the buses, but it still says Campbell River, and seeing that the member is sitting here, we just thought that he would take care of what's taking place there.

Moving on to the air transport assistance program, during the last quarter of '95-96 a review of the objectives was conducted, and it was recommended that the objectives be redefined. Has the recommendation been implemented?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Barisoff: Can you outline the progress?

Hon. L. Boone: We've decided to concentrate on existing facilities. We're not funding any new facilities, because we already have an adequate network.

B. Barisoff: The application for grants. Last year's total was just under $8 million, and $1.9 million -- almost $2 million -- was approved this year. I was just wondering why the substantial difference between the two.

Hon. L. Boone: Pardon me?

B. Barisoff: Applications for grants last year were just under $8 million, and the grants this. . . . What are the grants for this year?

Hon. L. Boone: About $2 million. I think I indicated that in my opening remarks.

B. Barisoff: That's the problem with the minister: she's so efficient in her opening remarks and covers such a broad base of questions that sometimes it leaves no questions to ask. I think she's trying to shorten the estimates. I think we'll help her along with that, anyhow.

Moving on to some other projects, on Highway 37 between Kitwanga and the Yukon border. . . . Are there any road improvements being planned for this stretch of highway in this year's projects?

Hon. L. Boone: As the member is well aware -- you should be well aware -- we're experiencing some difficulties with the seal-coating there. We are in fact tearing up that seal-coating and removing it. This is not under this ministry's budget, but I can tell you right now -- because it's not a capital project but a rehab -- that the seal-coating that was done was not of a good standard, therefore the base was not very good, so we've had to take up the seal-coating. We will be replacing it with gravel.

I've talked to the member who represents that area, who travelled that road last weekend. He's extremely concerned about the state of that road, and we'll be looking into what we can do. But you're looking at a 200-kilometre stretch of road that is in pretty bad condition due to the climate they had this year and the mud. We're doing the best we can on that. I can't say that I'm pleased with what we're able to do. I'd like to see us be able to repair it entirely, but I don't know whether that's possible at this particular time.

R. Neufeld: I have just a few questions about Highway 37 and the removal of the seal-coat. I appreciate the type of country that Highway 37 goes through; I know the highway quite well. The minister states that it was due to a bad roadbase and weather conditions that they're having to tear up the 80 -- I believe -- kilometres of seal-coat on Highway 37. My information has been, number one, that much of the roadbase when the seal-coat was put down was in very good shape and was quality roadbase for seal-coating. But I think that what has happened over the last number of years is that there has been absolutely no upgrading and no maintenance to any extent of the seal-coating that was in place. Now that's not the whole section of it, because there are some places where there are frost problems. There's no doubt about that. But generally speaking, the reason why we're tearing up the seal-coating -- and I have this from good sources within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, by the way -- is that we just haven't adequately funded the maintenance of that seal-coating. I guess I find it a bit distressing when we start tearing up seal-coating that was not put down too many years ago because we haven't maintained it in the proper fashion.

The second part that bothers me is that in Fort St. John this year we're planning on putting down a fair amount of seal-coating. At least, I'm told we're going to. I guess we'll find out in the fall just how much is laid down. But what bothers me is that we can't look after what we've already got, and we want to lay down some more. I'm just wondering if there really are plans within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to adequately look after the seal-coating that's going to be done in Peace River North and to somehow start looking after the seal-coating that's done in the rest of the province, so that we don't experience the same things that we're experiencing right now on Highway 37, which is tremendously expensive for the taxpayer. It's not just laying it in the first place and then tearing it up; it's the vehicles that get wrecked on the road in the meantime. And they do on seal-coating. Anyone that knows anything about seal-coating knows that as soon as it starts to lift there's some huge potholes, and it's very hard on vehicles.

Is there some plan in place within the ministry so that we can have the adequate funding to look after the infrastructure that we're trying to put down now, and also the infrastructure that's already in place with seal-coating across the province?

Hon. L. Boone: The member wasn't here. This is really getting into the area that is Transportation and Highways, which is the rehab area, and I'd like to leave it at that. But as I said earlier, I'm not going to stand here and tell you that everything's great. It ain't. It's not good. I know it, you know 

[ Page 5214 ]

it, and everybody that travels those roads throughout the north knows it. But I'd like to leave the discussion on 37, which has to do with seal-coating and all that stuff, until the Ministry of Highways staff are here, if that's okay.

B. Penner: I have a couple of questions for the minister concerning issues pertinent to my community in Chilliwack. Primarily, the direction of my question is whether there are any projects planned affecting my area, particularly to do with bridges. I know that's a topic you canvassed at some length earlier. There are many people in the province that would like bridges. Usually, when you think about Chilliwack, you wouldn't think that you would need another bridge in that area. However, as I think I mentioned last year during estimates, my community is, essentially, divided in half by the Trans-Canada Highway. There are, essentially, two primary overpasses that are used during rush hour to get people from one side of the community to the other. Increasingly, people are residing on the south side of the freeway in an area formerly referred to as Sardis, but they still travel across the freeway into Chilliwack on the north side, the older part of Chilliwack, to go to their place of employment.

City council has for some time been hoping and planning to complete an additional crossing across the Trans-Canada Highway, referred to as the Evans flyover. In fact, the district of Chilliwack has gone so far as to broaden Evans Road leading up to the point where the overpass would start, and they've placed the streetlights off to the side. They've considerably widened the road, and they've put in new sidewalks -- all of this in anticipation of someday getting some provincial assistance in completing the Evans Road flyover. I wonder if that's on the drawing board at all and, if not, if the ministry has any anticipation of when it would be.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm glad the member recognizes that everybody wants a bridge. It's true. I'd be the happiest person in the world if we could give everybody their bridges and their roads. But it's not in the plans to be done right now. We're continuing to work with the district of Chilliwack in exploring some options, some partnerships, to see if it is possible to deliver this project. But right now we're not at the stage where we will be planning or building this.

[9:30]

Hon. L. Boone: The short answer is all about money. It all depends on the funds, you know, how fast we can proceed with something or another. I mean, we could do the planning. But there's no sense in doing the planning dollars right now if you can't proceed immediately or pretty quickly with it, because the plans could change substantially. So it's a matter of the size and scope of the project and how quickly we can come up with the money.

As I said, in areas where we look to find alternative forms of financing, whether it be a public-private partnership. . . . If there's some participation by other areas, then that certainly helps us to leverage our dollars a little further and expand them. We're willing to look at every innovative method around to finance things, because as you know -- as everybody knows -- the dollars are out there. Taxpayers are spent. They don't want to pay any more for things. So we have to find other methods of paying for the various projects around the province.

B. Penner: While we're speaking about bridges, I would be remiss not to mention another project that I know the mayor of Chilliwack is quite keen about. He contacted me a couple of weeks ago to speak about the Keith Wilson Bailey bridge. It's also in the district of Chilliwack. A number of years ago, a one-lane Bailey bridge was placed across the Sumas Canal -- also known as the Vedder River Canal -- to help connect the community of Greendale with Yarrow. It provides an additional way for people from Chilliwack to access the Trans-Canada Highway.

But, of course, one of the problems is that it's a single-lane bridge with alternating traffic. The other is, I'm told, that the surface of the bridge is now deteriorating. It's a wood surface. There have apparently been a number of accidents in the last little while, leading the mayor to worry about liability on the part of the district of Chilliwack.

He expressed to me his interest in having this type of project be considered for the new federal-provincial infrastructure program. I don't know if the minister has got any information about where Chilliwack stands in terms of projects falling under the infrastructure program.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know whether he actually applied or not. We've received some 600 applications for the federal infrastructure program. We've gone through those to try again to distribute them as much as we could throughout the province, recognizing that there's a lot of money going into the lower mainland through the transit area, as my colleague from Yale-Lillooet pointed out. We need to make sure that some of the road money goes to the rest of the province.

At this particular time, I can't advise you what projects have been approved. They are currently waiting for federal approval. We've assessed all of the projects, again, trying to distribute them as much as we can around the province, recognizing that there are far more applications than what we have. I don't know whether your municipality applied. But right now we're waiting for approval from Minister Anderson on these.

B. Penner: I believe that the district of Chilliwack did apply, and the number one priority put forward by the district of Chilliwack was the Keith Wilson Bailey bridge replacement proposal.

One of my colleagues has just handed me a photocopied list entitled "Infrastructure Works Phase Two: Projects Announced July 2, 1997." It looks like the closest thing that we get in the central Fraser Valley are five new low-floor buses. I know there's a feeling in our community that in the last infrastructure program a number of years ago we got short shrift when compared to other areas in the province. I know that a number of people on council in Chilliwack are concerned that we will come up short again this time, and I suppose everybody is anxiously awaiting the decisions on the infrastructure projects.

Does the minister have some time line that she could share with the people in Chilliwack as to when we can expect some final decisions about the infrastructure program?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, I've been pushing David Anderson on this issue for two weeks now, trying to get him to get the approvals through. Coming from where I come 

[ Page 5215 ]

from, my concern is that our construction season -- and the construction season of the member for Peace River North -- is rapidly dwindling down, so we need to get approvals on these fairly rapidly.

What was approved yesterday was the cycling network and the transit programs, and I think there were seven highways projects: Lac la Hache, the Prince George one. . . . Having one in Prince George is amazing. . . . But I only got one transit bus, and that's it. The member for Yale-Lillooet was complaining because he didn't get many, either, so we all feel that we didn't get very many of these things.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: You got a bike path -- one bike path. So the roads section will be coming just as soon as David Anderson gives his approval on them. I can't second-guess what he's going to do, but I keep prodding him every opportunity I get.

J. Dalton: The minister might be pleased to know that this is the first year since I was elected that I'm not going to talk about Westview, because, happily, it's done.

However, I am going to talk about the Lions Gate Bridge. I have a series of questions I want to put on the record. Firstly, can the minister advise us of the cost of maintenance for this fiscal year of the bridge and the causeway?

Hon. L. Boone: It's increasing yearly. It was $1 million, and I think it's at $3 million now.

J. Dalton: Does that include the cost of the ad I saw recently for the stringers? I can't find it in my file, but I did spot that ad. I'm sure the minister and her staff will be familiar with that. Is that included?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

J. Dalton: As we all know, given the escalating rate of depreciation -- as Peter Buckland and others shared with us recently, and the figures bear it out -- we're getting very close to decision time, whereby this bridge deck must be replaced, if nothing else. Otherwise, it won't be just simply a tire slipping through; it may be a bicycle or even an entire vehicle slipping through.

I have a question or two regarding the process. Mr. Hibbins very kindly wrote to me on June 24 in response to a question that I put to him just prior to that, and I appreciate the update. I was a bit surprised. The first thing I'll put on the record is that when I received this letter from Mr. Hibbins, I phoned Pat Boname, the mayor of West Vancouver, and she knew nothing about this particular process. I thought that was a bit strange, given that West Vancouver, North Van district and North Van city are all part of the decision-making process. So can I ask the minister whether the mayors of those three North Shore municipalities are being kept current on the process as it develops?

Hon. L. Boone: Mr. Hibbins spent an hour and a half with the city of West Vancouver. I imagine that the mayor was there at that time, and they have had representatives at every meeting.

J. Dalton: I'm aware of that, but I did call Pat Boname as soon as I received this June 24 letter. I had written to Mr. Hibbins after his meeting with West Van council. That's why I called Pat, to see if she and her council were up to date on this. They knew nothing about these two pages I have, which I faxed to her. I would like the minister to know that. Certainly the people in West Vancouver and, I presume, Don Bell, the mayor of North Van district, and Jack Loucks, the mayor of the city of North Van, were also not advised of this. I haven't talked to either of them, but that's fine. I do know that West Van council has this document.

As part of this, if I recall, Mr. Hibbins has pointed out that in the month of July -- which we're now into -- expressions of interest on the Lions Gate crossing project will be accepted. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: We're working towards getting an expression for interest. I'm going to put this on the record here, because I've expressed to the TFA staff that I'm very concerned that we need to get concurrence from the North Shore municipalities on a toll, that we cannot go out for expressions of interest unless there's an agreement that a toll is going to be a part of that. I do not feel that I can, in good faith, ask a private sector company to put time -- and time is money to private companies -- into a proposal unless they know that a toll will be acceptable. I am very concerned that our time is dwindling, and we need to get the North Shore municipalities to either agree that a toll is acceptable or say that a toll is not acceptable, at which time, quite frankly, we will proceed with the rehabilitation.

I made that clear when I did my announcement. I made that clear when I spoke with the municipalities prior to the announcement. If there's any thought that we can proceed with anything other than a rehabilitation without a toll, then that is a false thought, and that ought to be. . . . I'm stating right here, right now to you and everybody else that the only money going into this project is $70 million. That is it. There will be no other dollars coming from the province. We do not have the money to do anything else.

B. Penner: That's more than Chilliwack got.

Hon. L. Boone: That's right. It's more than Chilliwack got, it's more than North Peace got, it's more than Yale-Lillooet got, it's more than Prince George got, it's more than most areas around here got. I cannot take money from any other area and put it into there and have nothing for anywhere else.

I need to make sure that those communities on the North Shore understand that we are ready to get expressions of interest and to actually start to work towards the four-laning project with the tunnels or what have you, to proceed next year. We want to do that, but unless we know that the North Shore communities are going to accept that, then we might as well just go with the rehab.

J. Dalton: Of course, I'm well aware of the toll issue. I was, as the minister knows, at her April 18 press conference when she made that first statement. I was at the board-of-trade panel discussion when she was the lead speaker, and we further discussed it. I'm well aware of what West Vancouver has done in its motion, and I'm certainly aware of what my own district council did on June 2. It might be interesting for the committee to know that North Van city is not on record as having made any particular decision yet. They have discussed the issue, but they have not made any motion.

[9:45]

[ Page 5216 ]

perhaps wonder out loud. She's mentioned the three North Shore municipalities. Would she be including the city of Vancouver as a decision-maker on this toll issue? After all, many people who live in Vancouver work on the North Shore or visit Grouse Mountain, the suspension bridge, Whistler, the ferries and beyond, into the interior.

I guess I'm a little confused. Maybe I do need a response right now. Are we talking about a one-way process, that the North Shore has to make a decision on tolls but people on the south shore are not involved in that process?

Hon. L. Boone: No, by all means. As I said earlier, there are partners that are involved. There's the Squamish nation, there are the North Shore municipalities, there's the parks board, the GVRD and the city of Vancouver. All of these people will have a say as to what type of. . . . Well, we want their input into the request for proposal, and we want their input later on in choosing what the actual acceptable proposal is.

I have not heard from the city of Vancouver that they are opposed to a toll, and I don't think that has come about at our meetings. Nobody has indicated to me that there is opposition from the city of Vancouver to a toll. Obviously, if the city of Vancouver is against a toll, and if all the North Shore people are against a toll, then we're wasting our time. We'll just go on and do the rehab. But I have not had that indication from the city of Vancouver. Nor have I had that indication from the GVRD, from the Squamish nation or, for that matter, from the parks board. I think the parks board is very interested in seeing us get a project that will reduce traffic through the park. They'd like to see us have an opportunity to reduce the number of lanes or eliminate the lanes in the park. That's certainly to their advantage.

So from my perspective, I have not seen any opposition. The only opposition to a toll I've heard is from the North Shore. Some may be under an illusion that if they oppose the toll and say, "We are not going to accept a toll," the province will pitch in all the money. In fact, I've read that. "Well, if we stick to our guns, we will in fact get more money from the province." Well, I'm telling you today: there is no more money; it's not coming.

I would really like to see some recognition from the North Shore communities that they are on side. I've said that I'm not accepting a veto. I won't let one community veto this whole thing. But if the entire North Shore says, "This is not a go," then I think we have a problem here.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:48 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada